Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the articles of this issue

Published in: Quality of Life Research 2/2017

31-08-2016

Value redefined for inflammatory bowel disease patients: a choice-based conjoint analysis of patients’ preferences

Authors: Welmoed K. van Deen, Dominic Nguyen, Natalie E. Duran, Ellen Kane, Martijn G. H. van Oijen, Daniel W. Hommes

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access
share
SHARE

Abstract

Purpose

Value-based healthcare is an upcoming field. The core idea is to evaluate care based on achieved outcomes divided by the costs. Unfortunately, the optimal way to evaluate outcomes is ill-defined. In this study, we aim to develop a single, preference based, outcome metric, which can be used to quantify overall health value in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Methods

IBD patients filled out a choice-based conjoint (CBC) questionnaire in which patients chose preferable outcome scenarios with different levels of disease control (DC), quality of life (QoL), and productivity (Pr). A CBC analysis was performed to estimate the relative value of DC, QoL, and Pr. A patient-centered composite score was developed which was weighted based on the stated preferences.

Results

We included 210 IBD patients. Large differences in stated preferences were observed. Increases from low to intermediate outcome levels were valued more than increases from intermediate to high outcome levels. Overall, QoL was more important to patients than DC or Pr. Individual outcome scores were calculated based on the stated preferences. This score was significantly different from a score not weighted based on patient preferences in patients with active disease.

Conclusions

We showed the feasibility of creating a single outcome metric in IBD which incorporates patients’ values using a CBC. Because this metric changes significantly when weighted according to patients’ values, we propose that success in healthcare should be measured accordingly.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Porter, M. E., & Teisberg, E. O. (2004). Redefining competition in health care. Harvard Business Review, 82(6), 64–76. PubMed Porter, M. E., & Teisberg, E. O. (2004). Redefining competition in health care. Harvard Business Review, 82(6), 64–76. PubMed
3.
6.
go back to reference Melmed, G. Y., & Siegel, C. A. (2013). Quality improvement in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y), 9(5), 286–292. Melmed, G. Y., & Siegel, C. A. (2013). Quality improvement in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y), 9(5), 286–292.
7.
go back to reference Stacey, D., Legare, F., Col, N. F., Bennett, C. L., Barry, M. J., Eden, K. B., et al. (2014). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, Cd001431. doi: 10.​1002/​14651858.​CD001431.​pub4. Stacey, D., Legare, F., Col, N. F., Bennett, C. L., Barry, M. J., Eden, K. B., et al. (2014). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, Cd001431. doi: 10.​1002/​14651858.​CD001431.​pub4.
8.
go back to reference US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims (December 2009). US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims (December 2009).
11.
go back to reference Bridges, J. F., Hauber, A. B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L. A., Regier, D. A., et al. (2011). Conjoint analysis applications in health–a checklist: A report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health, 14(4), 403–413. doi: 10.​1016/​j.​jval.​2010.​11.​013. CrossRefPubMed Bridges, J. F., Hauber, A. B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L. A., Regier, D. A., et al. (2011). Conjoint analysis applications in health–a checklist: A report of the ISPOR good research practices for conjoint analysis task force. Value Health, 14(4), 403–413. doi: 10.​1016/​j.​jval.​2010.​11.​013. CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference van Deen, W. K., van der Meulen-de Jong, A. E., Parekh, N. K., Muyshondt, Y., Kane, E., Eimers, L., et al. (2015). Su1230 remote monitoring of IBD disease activity using the Mobile Health Index (mHI): A validation study. Gastroenterology, 148(4), S-446. doi: 10.​1016/​S0016-5085(15)31501-8. CrossRef van Deen, W. K., van der Meulen-de Jong, A. E., Parekh, N. K., Muyshondt, Y., Kane, E., Eimers, L., et al. (2015). Su1230 remote monitoring of IBD disease activity using the Mobile Health Index (mHI): A validation study. Gastroenterology, 148(4), S-446. doi: 10.​1016/​S0016-5085(15)31501-8. CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Orme, B. (2000). Hierarchical Bayes: Why all the attention? Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, 16, 58–63. Orme, B. (2000). Hierarchical Bayes: Why all the attention? Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, 16, 58–63.
15.
go back to reference Wittink, D. R. (2000). Predictive validity of conjoint analysis. In Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference, Sequim, WA, March 2000 (Vol. 2000, pp. 221–237). Wittink, D. R. (2000). Predictive validity of conjoint analysis. In Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference, Sequim, WA, March 2000 (Vol. 2000, pp. 221–237).
16.
go back to reference Orme, B. (2010). Sample size issues for conjoint analysis. In B. Orme (Ed.), Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research. (2nd ed., pp. 57–66). Madison, WI: Research Publishers LLC. Orme, B. (2010). Sample size issues for conjoint analysis. In B. Orme (Ed.), Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research. (2nd ed., pp. 57–66). Madison, WI: Research Publishers LLC.
18.
go back to reference Devlin, N., Shah, K.K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B. & van Hout, B. (2016) Valuing Health-Related Quality of Life: An EQ-5D-5L Value Set for England. OHE Research Paper. London: Office of Health Economics. Devlin, N., Shah, K.K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B. & van Hout, B. (2016) Valuing Health-Related Quality of Life: An EQ-5D-5L Value Set for England. OHE Research Paper. London: Office of Health Economics.
20.
go back to reference Wiering, B., de Boer, D., & Delnoij, D. (2016). Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: A scoping review. Health Expectations. doi: 10.​1111/​hex.​12442. PubMed Wiering, B., de Boer, D., & Delnoij, D. (2016). Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: A scoping review. Health Expectations. doi: 10.​1111/​hex.​12442. PubMed
21.
go back to reference Wennberg, J. E., O’Connor, A. M., Collins, E. D., & Weinstein, J. N. (2007). Extending the P4P agenda, part 1: How medicare can improve patient decision making and reduce unnecessary care. Health Affairs (Millwood), 26(6), 1564–1574. doi: 10.​1377/​hlthaff.​26.​6.​1564. CrossRef Wennberg, J. E., O’Connor, A. M., Collins, E. D., & Weinstein, J. N. (2007). Extending the P4P agenda, part 1: How medicare can improve patient decision making and reduce unnecessary care. Health Affairs (Millwood), 26(6), 1564–1574. doi: 10.​1377/​hlthaff.​26.​6.​1564. CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Value redefined for inflammatory bowel disease patients: a choice-based conjoint analysis of patients’ preferences
Authors
Welmoed K. van Deen
Dominic Nguyen
Natalie E. Duran
Ellen Kane
Martijn G. H. van Oijen
Daniel W. Hommes
Publication date
31-08-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1398-z