Patients’ preferences for the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments

References

• NICE. Common mental health disorders: the NICE guideline on identification and pathways to care. Leicester: British Psychological Society; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. Ageing report: policy challenges for ageing societies [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2019 Jan 7]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/economy-finance/policy-implications-ageing-examined-new-report-2018-may-25_en
   Google Scholar
• Trautmann S, Rehm J, Wittchen HU. The economic costs of mental disorders: do our societies react appropriately to the burden of mental disorders? EMBO Rep. 2016;17:1245–1249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Mental disorders [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 Jan 11]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-disorders
   Google Scholar
• Ritchie H, Roser M. Mental health [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 Jan 28]. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/mental-health
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Depression and other common mental disorders: global health estimates (license: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Eaton WW, Martins SS, Nestadt G, et al. The burden of mental disorders. Epidemiol Rev. 2008;30:1–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vos T, Allen C, Arora M, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388:1545–1602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chisholm D, Sweeny K, Sheehan P, et al. Scaling-up treatment of depression and anxiety: a global return on investment analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3:415–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter AJ, Vos T, Scott KM, et al. The global burden of anxiety disorders in 2010. Psychol Med. 2014;44:2363–2374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, et al. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2013;382:1575–1586.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NIMH. The National Institute of Mental Health. Anxiety disorders [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 Jun 18]. Available from: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/anxiety-disorders/index.shtml
   Google Scholar
• Sobocki P, Jönsson B, Angst J, et al. Cost of depression in Europe. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2006;9:87–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso J, Codony M, Kovess V, et al. Population level of unmet need for mental healthcare in Europe. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;190:299–306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornicroft G, Chatterji S, Evans-Lacko S, et al. Undertreatment of people with major depressive disorder in 21 countries. Br J Psychiatry. 2017;210:119–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittchen H-U, Jacobi F. Die Versorgungssituation psychischer Störungen in Deutschland. Bundesgesundheitsblatt – Gesundheitsforschung – Gesundheitsschutz. 2001;44:993–1000.
   Google Scholar
• Zepf S, Mengele U, Hartmann S. Zum Stand der ambulanten psychotherapeutischen Versorgung der Erwachsenen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [The state of outpatient psychotherapy in Germany]. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2003;53:152–162.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Federal Chamber of Psychotherapists. BPtK-Studie: Ein Jahr nach der Reform der Psychotherapie-Richtlinie – Wartezeiten [Internet]; 2018 [updated 2018 Apr 11; cited 2019 Jun 23]. Available from: https://www.bptk.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/20180411_bptk_studie_wartezeiten_2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Foreman DM, Hanna M. How long can a waiting list be? Psychiatr Bull. 2000;24:211–213.
   Google Scholar
• Dexter PR, Miller DK, Clark DO, et al. Preparing for an aging population and improving chronic disease management. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2010;2010:162–166.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenfield SM, Kaplan S, Ware JE. Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102:520–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14:403–413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umar N, Schaarschmidt M, Schmieder A, et al. Matching physicians’ treatment recommendations to patients’ treatment preferences is associated with improvement in treatment satisfaction. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2013;27:763–770.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lokkerbol J, Geomini A, van Voorthuijsen J, et al. A discrete-choice experiment to assess treatment modality preferences of patients with depression. J Med Econ. 2019;22:178–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swift JK, Callahan JL, Vollmer BM. Preferences. J Clin Psychol. 2011;67:155–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, et al. Patients’ preferences for anti-osteoporosis drug treatment: a cross-European discrete choice experiment. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56:1167–1176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:883–902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mühlbacher A, Bethge S, Tockhorn A. Präferenzmessung im Gesundheitswesen: Grundlagen von Discrete-Choice-Experimenten. Gesundh Ökon Qual Manag. 2013;18:159–172.
   Google Scholar
• Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Allgemeine Methoden: Version 5.0 vom 10.07.2017. Köln; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Hazlewood GS. Measuring patient preferences: an overview of methods with a focus on discrete choice experiments. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2018;44:337–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson RT, Louviere JJ. A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Resour Econ. 2011;49:539–559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaarschmidt ML, Schmieder A, Umar N, et al. Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments: process characteristics can outweigh outcome attributes. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147:1285–1294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bien DR, Danner M, Vennedey V, et al. Patients’ preferences for outcome, process and cost attributes in cancer treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2017;10:553–565.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bekker-Grob EWd, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soekhai V, Bekker-Grob EWd, Ellis AR, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:201–226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eiring Ø, Landmark BF, Aas E, et al. What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e007848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deutsches Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DIMDI) im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit (BMG) unter Beteiligung der Arbeitsgruppe ICD des Kuratoriums für Fragen der Klassifikation im Gesundheitswesen. ICD-10-GM Version 2019, Systematisches Verzeichnis, Internationale statistische Klassifikation der Krankheiten und verwandter Gesundheitsprobleme, 10. Revision, Stand: 21 Sep 2018; [Internet]; [cited 2019 Jun 2]. Available from: www.dimdi.de
   Google Scholar
• Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Nervenheilkunde, Ärztliches Zentrum für Qualität in der Medizin. S3-Leitlinie/Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinie Unipolare Depression – Langfassung, 2. Auflage. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Nervenheilkunde (DGPPN); Bundesärztekammer (BÄK); Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (KBV); Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF); 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CMG, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19:300–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joy SM, Little E, Maruthur NM, et al. Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:877–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helter TM, Boehler C. Developing attributes for discrete choice experiments in health: a systematic literature review and case study of alcohol misuse interventions. J Subst Use. 2016;21:662–668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwight-Johnson M, Lagomasino IT, Aisenberg E, et al. Using conjoint analysis to assess depression treatment preferences among low-income Latinos. Psychiatr Serv. 2004;55:934–936.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwight-Johnson M, Apesoa-Varano C, Hay J, et al. Depression treatment preferences of older white and Mexican origin men. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35:59–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwight-Johnson M, Lagomasino IT, Hay J, et al. Effectiveness of collaborative care in addressing depression treatment preferences among low-income Latinos. Psychiatr Serv. 2010;61:1112–1118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Manjunath R, et al. Factors that affect adherence to bipolar disorder treatments: a stated-preference approach. Med Care. 2007;45:545–552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morey E, Thacher JA, Craighead WE. Patient preferences for depression treatment programs and willingness to pay for treatment. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2007;10:73–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng-Mak D, Poon J-L, Roberts L, et al. Patient preferences for important attributes of bipolar depression treatments: a discrete choice experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;12:35–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groenewoud S, Van Exel NJA, Bobinac A, et al. What influences patients’ decisions when choosing a health care provider? Measuring preferences of patients with knee arthrosis, chronic depression, or Alzheimer’s disease, using discrete choice experiments. Health Serv Res. 2015;50:1941–1972.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lokkerbol J, van Voorthuijsen JM, Geomini A, et al. A discrete-choice experiment to assess treatment modality preferences of patients with anxiety disorder. J Med Econ. 2019;22:169–177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wouters H, van Dijk L, Van Geffen ECG, et al. Primary-care patients’ trade-off preferences with regard to antidepressants. Psychol Med. 2014;44:2301–2308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmermann TM, Clouth J, Elosge M, et al. Patient preferences for outcomes of depression treatment in Germany: a choice-based conjoint analysis study. J Affect Disord. 2013;148:210–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Louviere JJ. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21:730–741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2:55–64.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Carson RT. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model. 2010;3:57–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) – Pilotprojekt zur Erhebung von Patientenpräferenzen in der Indikation Depression: Arbeitspapier. Köln; 2013. (IQWiG-Berichte; no. 163).
   Google Scholar
• Vennedey V, Danner M, Evers SM, et al. Using qualitative research to facilitate the interpretation of quantitative results from a discrete choice experiment: insights from a survey in elderly ophthalmologic patients. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:993–1002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar