Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients

Janssen IM, Scheibler F, Gerhardus A (2016)
Patient Preference and Adherence 10: 2491-2500.

Download
OA 650.21 KB
Zeitschriftenaufsatz | Veröffentlicht | Englisch
Autor
; ;
Abstract / Bemerkung
Background: The selection of important outcomes is a crucial decision for clinical research and health technology assessment (HTA), and there is ongoing debate about which stakeholders should be involved. Hemodialysis is a complex treatment for chronic kidney disease (CKD) and affects many outcomes. Apart from obvious outcomes, such as mortality, morbidity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), others such as, concerning daily living or health care provision, may also be important. The aim of our study was to analyze to what extent the preferences for patient-relevant outcomes differed between various stakeholders. We compared preferences of stakeholders normally or occasionally involved in outcome prioritization (patients from a self-help group, clinicians and HTA authors) with those of a large reference group of patients. Participants and methods: The reference group consisted of 4,518 CKD patients investigated previously. We additionally recruited CKD patients via a regional self-help group, nephrologists via an online search and HTA authors via an expert database or personal contacts. All groups assessed the relative importance of the 23 outcomes by means of a discrete visual analog scale. We used descriptive statistics to rank outcomes and compare the results between groups. Results: We received completed questionnaires from 49 self-help group patients, 19 nephrologists and 18 HTA authors. Only the following 3 outcomes were ranked within the top 7 outcomes by all 4 groups: safety, HRQoL and emotional state. The ratings by the self-help group were generally more concordant with the reference group ratings than those by nephrologists, while HTA authors showed the least concordance. Conclusion: Preferences of CKD patients from a self-help group, nephrologists and HTA authors differ to a varying extent from those of a large reference group of patients with CKD. The preferences of all stakeholders should form the basis of a transparent approach so as to generate a valid list of important outcomes.
Erscheinungsjahr
Zeitschriftentitel
Patient Preference and Adherence
Band
10
Seite
2491-2500
ISSN
Finanzierungs-Informationen
Article Processing Charge funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Open Access Publication Fund of Bielefeld University.
PUB-ID

Zitieren

Janssen IM, Scheibler F, Gerhardus A. Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients. Patient Preference and Adherence. 2016;10:2491-2500.
Janssen, I. M., Scheibler, F., & Gerhardus, A. (2016). Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients. Patient Preference and Adherence, 10, 2491-2500. doi:10.2147/ppa.s122319
Janssen, I. M., Scheibler, F., and Gerhardus, A. (2016). Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients. Patient Preference and Adherence 10, 2491-2500.
Janssen, I.M., Scheibler, F., & Gerhardus, A., 2016. Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients. Patient Preference and Adherence, 10, p 2491-2500.
I.M. Janssen, F. Scheibler, and A. Gerhardus, “Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients”, Patient Preference and Adherence, vol. 10, 2016, pp. 2491-2500.
Janssen, I.M., Scheibler, F., Gerhardus, A.: Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients. Patient Preference and Adherence. 10, 2491-2500 (2016).
Janssen, Inger M., Scheibler, Fueloep, and Gerhardus, Ansgar. “Importance of hemodialysis-related outcomes: comparison of ratings by a self-help group, clinicians, and health technology assessment authors with those by a large reference group of patients”. Patient Preference and Adherence 10 (2016): 2491-2500.
Volltext(e)
Access Level
OA Open Access
Zuletzt Hochgeladen
2017-03-22T12:10:55Z

1 Zitation in Europe PMC

Daten bereitgestellt von Europe PubMed Central.

TAKING PATIENT HETEROGENEITY AND PREFERENCES INTO ACCOUNT IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS.
Kievit W, Tummers M, van Hoorn R, Booth A, Mozygemba K, Refolo P, Sacchini D, Pfadenhauer L, Gerhardus A, Van der Wilt GJ., Int J Technol Assess Health Care 33(5), 2017
PMID: 29065947

25 References

Daten bereitgestellt von Europe PubMed Central.

Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation.
Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, Single A., Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26(3), 2010
PMID: 20584364
Patient-focused HTAs.
Facey KM, Hansen HP., Int J Technol Assess Health Care 27(4), 2011
PMID: 22004766
Patient engagement in research: a systematic review.
Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, Brito JP, Boehmer K, Hasan R, Firwana B, Erwin P, Eton D, Sloan J, Montori V, Asi N, Dabrh AM, Murad MH., BMC Health Serv Res 14(), 2014
PMID: 24568690
Patienten- und Bürgerpartizipation in der Entscheidungsfindung im Gesundheitswesen insbesondere bei der Bewertung von Arzneimitteln [Involving patients, the insured and the general public in healthcare decision making]
Muhlbacher AC, Juhnke C., 2016

AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 2001
Valuing patients' experiences of healthcare processes: towards broader applications of existing methods.
Ryan M, Kinghorn P, Entwistle VA, Francis JJ., Soc Sci Med 106(), 2014
PMID: 24568844
A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.
Janssen IM, Gerhardus A, Schroer-Gunther MA, Scheibler F., Health Expect 18(6), 2015
PMID: 25156207
Patient preferences versus physicians' judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making?
Muhlbacher AC, Juhnke C., Appl Health Econ Health Policy 11(3), 2013
PMID: 23529716
Patient and Caregiver Priorities for Outcomes in Hemodialysis: An International Nominal Group Technique Study.
Urquhart-Secord R, Craig JC, Hemmelgarn B, Tam-Tham H, Manns B, Howell M, Polkinghorne KR, Kerr PG, Harris DC, Thompson S, Schick-Makaroff K, Wheeler DC, van Biesen W, Winkelmayer WC, Johnson DW, Howard K, Evangelidis N, Tong A., Am. J. Kidney Dis. 68(3), 2016
PMID: 26968042
Preferences of patients undergoing hemodialysis - results from a questionnaire-based study with 4,518 patients.
Janssen IM, Gerhardus A, von Gersdorff GD, Baldamus CA, Schaller M, Barth C, Scheibler F., Patient Prefer Adherence 9(), 2015
PMID: 26170634
Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework.
Biomarkers Definitions Working Group.., Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 69(3), 2001
PMID: 11240971

AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 2011

AUTHOR UNKNOWN, 2009
Balancing costs and benefits at different stages of medical innovation: a systematic review of Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA).
Wahlster P, Goetghebeur M, Kriza C, Niederlander C, Kolominsky-Rabas P; National Leading-Edge Cluster Medical Technologies ‘Medical Valley EMN’., BMC Health Serv Res 15(), 2015
PMID: 26152122
Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review.
Gargon E, Gurung B, Medley N, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Williamson PR., PLoS ONE 9(6), 2014
PMID: 24932522
Building bridges between populations and samples in epidemiological studies.
Kalsbeek W, Heiss G., Annu Rev Public Health 21(), 2000
PMID: 10884950
Sampling in epidemiological research: issues, hazards and pitfalls.
Tyrer S, Heyman B., BJPsych Bull 40(2), 2016
PMID: 27087985
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making--Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force.
Marsh K, IJzerman M, Thokala P, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z, Lonngren T, Mussen F, Peacock S, Watkins J, Devlin N; ISPOR Task Force., Value Health 19(2), 2016
PMID: 27021745
Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences.
Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, Lemieux R, Gauvin FP, Pollender H, Legare F., Int J Technol Assess Health Care 27(1), 2011
PMID: 21262085
Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by Inahta agencies.
Hailey D, Werko S, Bakri R, Cameron A, Gohlen B, Myles S, Pwu J, Yothasamut J., Int J Technol Assess Health Care 29(1), 2013
PMID: 23217279
Establishing core outcome domains in hemodialysis: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop
Tong A, Manns B, Hemmelgarn B., 2016
FRAMEWORK FOR USER INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL: VIEWS OF HEALTH MANAGERS, USER REPRESENTATIVES, AND CLINICIANS.
Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, Coulombe M, Tantchou MD, Legare F., Int J Technol Assess Health Care 31(1-2), 2015
PMID: 25952585

Export

Markieren/ Markierung löschen
Markierte Publikationen

Open Data PUB

Web of Science

Dieser Datensatz im Web of Science®

Quellen

PMID: 28008235
PubMed | Europe PMC

Suchen in

Google Scholar