Voehler Dominic, Neumann Peter J, Ollendorf Daniel A
Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2022 Dec 20;16:3383-3392. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S390227. eCollection 2022.
We aimed to investigate patient and caregiver views on the relative importance of traditional and nontraditional domains of value, and to determine if these views differed according to key demographic characteristics.
We conducted a modified Delphi approach using a web-based survey of adult patients managing a chronic condition or caregivers of a patient with chronic illness who were recruited using purposive sampling focused on demographic and clinical characteristics. The first survey round asked participants to rate the 13 domains of value on a 5-point Likert scale and rank each domain that they rated as important or very important. In the second survey round, participants reconsidered their own and aggregated round 1 results. New questions were added, including "rescuing" domains, challenges faced in taking medication, and a free-text option to add domains not already captured.
Initial recruitment resulted in 79 participants. Sixty-three (79.7%) completed the first round, and 58 participants completed both rounds. Overall ratings and rankings were consistent between survey rounds, and respondents ranked most highly domains considered traditional domains of value (for example, survival, costs). Patient activists were about six times more likely to rate each domain as important or very important compared to general disease advocates. Significant factors associated with a higher odds of rating a domain as important or very important were age 35-54 and 55-64 compared to 18-34, while factors associated with a decreased odds were males and patients compared to caregivers.
Patients and caregivers place significant emphasis on traditional measures of value compared to nontraditional measures, and participants' prior beliefs impact what aspects of value they deem important.
我们旨在调查患者及照料者对传统和非传统价值领域相对重要性的看法,并确定这些看法是否因关键人口统计学特征而异。
我们采用改良的德尔菲法,通过基于网络的调查对患有慢性病的成年患者或慢性病患者的照料者进行研究,这些患者和照料者是通过有目的抽样招募的,重点关注人口统计学和临床特征。第一轮调查要求参与者用5分李克特量表对13个价值领域进行评分,并对他们认为重要或非常重要的每个领域进行排序。在第二轮调查中,参与者重新考虑自己的以及汇总的第一轮结果。增加了新问题,包括“挽救”领域、服药面临的挑战,以及一个自由文本选项,用于添加未涵盖的领域。
最初招募了79名参与者。63名(79.7%)完成了第一轮调查,58名参与者完成了两轮调查。两轮调查的总体评分和排名一致,受访者对被视为传统价值领域的领域(如生存、成本)排名最高。与一般疾病倡导者相比,患者维权人士将每个领域评为重要或非常重要的可能性大约高出六倍。与将一个领域评为重要或非常重要的较高几率相关的显著因素是年龄在35 - 54岁和55 - 64岁,而与较低几率相关的因素是男性以及患者(与照料者相比)。
与非传统衡量标准相比,患者和照料者非常重视传统价值衡量标准,参与者的先入之见会影响他们认为重要的价值方面。