An evaluation of patient preferences for osteoporosis medication attributes: results from the PREFER-US study

References

• Kravitz RL, Melnikow J. Engaging patients in medical decision making. Br Med J 2001;323:584–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Say R, Murtagh M, Thomson R. Patients’ preference for involvement in medical decision making: a narrative review. Patient Educ Couns 2006;60:102–14
   Google Scholar
• Caro G, Caro J, O’Brien J, et al. Migraine therapy: development and testing of a patient preference questionnaire. Headache 1998;38:602–7
   Google Scholar
• Unson C, Siccion E, Gaztambide J, et al. Nonadherence and osteoporosis treatment preferences of older women: a qualitative study. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2003;12: 1037–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2618–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodenheimer T, Lorig K, Holman H, et al. Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. J Am Med Assoc 2002;288:2469–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unutzer J, Katon W, Callahan CM, et al. Collaborative care management of late-life depression in the primary care setting: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 2002;288: 2836–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holman H, Lorig K. Patients as partners in managing chronic disease. Br Med J 2000;320:526–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasgow R, Funnell M, Bonomi A, et al. Self-management aspects of the improving chronic illness care breakthrough series: implementation with diabetes and heart failure teams. Ann Behav Med 2002;24:80–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999;49:651–61
   Google Scholar
• Benbassat J, Pilpel D, Tidhar M. Patients’ preferences for participation in clinical decision-making: a review of published surveys. Behav Med 1998;24:81–8
   Google Scholar
• Auerbach S. Do patients want control over their own health care? A review of measures, findings, and research issues. J Health Psychol 2001;6:191–203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montgomery A, Fahey T. How do patients’ treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians? Qual Health Care 2001;10(Suppl I):i39–i43
   Google Scholar
• Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Measuring patient’s preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk. Qual Health Care 2001;10(Suppl I):i2–i8
   Google Scholar
• Say RE, Thomson R. The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions – challenges for doctors. Br Med J 2003;327:542–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolf SH, Chan EC, Harris R, et al. Promoting informed choice: transforming health care to dispense knowledge for decision making. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:293–300
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade AH, Weir DN, Cameron AP, et al. Using a problem detection study (PDS) to identify and compare health care provider and consumer views of antihypertensive therapy. J Hum Hypertens 2003;17:397–405
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee A, Gin T, Lau AS, et al. A comparison of patients’ and health care professionals’ preferences for symptoms during immediate postoperative recovery and the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg 2005; 100:87–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson M, Sinha A, Hass S, et al. Validation of a general measure of treatment satisfaction, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), using a national panel study of chronic disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2:12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Laine C, Davidoff F. Patient-centered medicine. J Am Med Assoc 1996;275:152–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry M. Involving patients in medical decisions. J Am Med Assoc 1999;282:2356–7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entwistle V, Sheldon T, Sowden A, et al. Evidence-informed patient choice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998;14: 212–25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cranney A, Guyatt G, Griffith L, et al. Meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. IX: summary of meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Rev 2002;23:570–8
   Google Scholar
• Simon J, Lewiecki E, Smith M, et al. Patient preference for once-weekly alendronate 70 mg versus once-daily alendronate 10 mg: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover study. Clin Ther 2002;24:1871–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendler D, Kung AW, Fuleihan Gel-H, et al. Patients with osteoporosis prefer once weekly to once daily dosing with alendronate. Maturitas 2004;48:243–51
   Google Scholar
• Emkey R, Koltun W, Beusterien K, et al. Patient preferences for once-monthly ibandronate versus once-weekly alendronate in a randomized, open-label, cross-over trial: the Boniva Alendronate Trial in Osteoporosis (BALTO). Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:1895–903
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss M, Vered I, Foldes A, et al. Treatment preference and tolerability with alendronate once weekly over a 3-month period: an Israeli multi-center study. Aging Clin Exp Res 2005;17:143–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodcock A, Bradley C. Validation of the HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (HIVTSQ). Qual Life Res 2001;10:517–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green J, Kleinman L, Ciesla G, et al. Subcutaneous injection scale: psychometric evaluation of a treatment satisfaction instrument associated with a novel HIV medication. HIV Clin Trials 2002;3:387–95
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Atkinson M, Stewart W, Fain J, et al. A new measure of patient satisfaction with ocular hypotensive medications: the Treatment Satisfaction Survey for Intraocular Pressure (TSS-IOP). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:1–39
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Campbell J, Kiebert G, Patridge M. Development of the Satisfaction with Inhaled Asthma Treatment Questionnaire. Eur Respir J 2003;22:127–34
   Google Scholar
• Coyne K, Wiklund I, Schmier J, et al. Development and validation of a disease-specific treatment satisfaction questionnaire for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;18:907–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luciani R, Osterhaus J, Gutterman D. Patient preferences for migraine therapy: subcutaneous sumatriptan compared with other medications. J Fam Pract 1995;41:147–52
   Google Scholar
• Silberstein S. Migraine symptoms: results of a survey of self-reported migraineurs. Headache 1995;35:387–96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouchard J, Cortelli P, Dahlof C, et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;11(Suppl 1):43–50
   Google Scholar
• Finkelstein B, Singh J, Silvers J, et al. Patient attitudes and preferences regarding treatment: GH therapy for childhood short stature. Horm Res 1999;51(Suppl 1):67–72
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lipton R, Stewart W. Acute migraine therapy: do doctors understand what patients with migraine want from therapy? Headache 1999;39(Suppl 2):S20–S26
   Google Scholar
• McCombs J, Thiebaud P, McLaughlin-Miley C, et al. Compliance with drug therapies for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis. Maturitas 2004;48:271–87
   Google Scholar
• Solomon DH, Avorn J, Katz JN, et al. Compliance with osteoporosis medications. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2414–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yood RA, Emani S, Reed JI, et al. Compliance with pharmacologic therapy for osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2003;14:965–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reginster JY. Adherence and persistence: impact on outcomes and health care resources. Bone 2006;38(Suppl 2):18–21
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caro J, Ishak K, Huybrechts K, et al. The impact of compliance with osteoporosis therapy on fracture rates in actual practice. Osteoporos Int 2004;15:1003–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huybrechts KF, Ishak KJ, Caro JJ. Assessment of compliance with osteoporosis treatment and its consequences in a managed care population. Bone 2005 December 1; [Epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Shikiar R, Rentz AM. Satisfaction with medication: an overview of conceptual, methodologic, and regulatory issues. Value Health 2004;7:204–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlof C. How to assess patient preference of migraine treatments. Cephalalgia 1999;19(Suppl 24):2–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salonen R, Ashford E, Gibbs M, et al. Patient preference for oral sumatriptan 25 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg in the acute treatment of migraine: a double-blind, randomized, crossover study. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 1999;105:16–24
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• List M, Stracks J, Colangelo L, et al. How do head and neck cancer patients prioritize treatment outcomes before initiating treatment? J Clin Oncol 2000;18:877–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powers C, Szeto S, Pangtay D, et al. Evaluation of migraineurs’ preferences for naratriptan over conventional first-line agents. Arch Fam Med 2000;9(8):753–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaliner M. Patient preferences and satisfaction with prescribed nasal steroids for allergic rhinitis. Allergy Asthma Proc 2001;22(Suppl 1):S11–S15
   Google Scholar
• Pascual J, Bussone G, Hernandez J, et al. Comparison of preference for rizatriptan 10-mg wafer versus sumatriptan 50-mg tablet in migraine. Eur Neurol 2001;45:275–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascual J, Munoz R, Leira R. An open preference study with sumatriptan 50 mg and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg in 100 migraine patients. Cephalalgia 2001;21: 680–4
   Google Scholar
• Johnson M, Guilford S, Libretto S. Patients have treatment preferences: a multicentre, double-blind, crossover study comparing rabeprazole and omeprazole. Curr Med Res Opin 2002;18:303–10
   Google Scholar
• Miller L, Huffman H, Weidmer B, et al. Patient preferences regarding antiretroviral therapy. Int J STD AIDS 2002;13: 593–601
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert N, Rowe G, Bowling A, et al. Reasons underpinning patients’ preferences for various angina treatments. Health Expect 2004;7:246–56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahadevia PJ, Shah S, Leibman C, et al. Patient preferences for sensory attributes of intranasal corticosteroids and willingness to adhere to prescribed therapy for allergic rhinitis: a conjoint analysis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2004;93:345–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulet LP, Cowie R, Johnston P, et al. Comparison of Diskus inhaler, a new multidose powder inhaler, with Diskhaler inhaler for the delivery of salmeterol to asthmatic patients. J Asthma 1995;32:429–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahajan P, Okamoto L. Patient satisfaction with the Diskhaler® and the Diskus® Inhaler, a new multidose powder delivery system for the treatment of asthma. Clin Ther 1997;19:1126–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Toole D, Ducreux M, Bommelaer G, et al. Treatment of carcinoid syndrome. Cancer 2000;88:770–6
   Google Scholar
• Aristides M, Weston AR, FitzGerald P, et al. Patient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: a multicountry application of a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 2004;7:442–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin RR, Peyrot M. Quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and treatment preference associated with use of a pen device delivering a premixed 70/30 insulin aspart suspension (aspart protamine suspension/soluble aspart) versus alternative treatment strategies. Diabetes Care 2004;27:2495–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis R, Bennett C, Borkon W, et al. Patient and partner satisfaction with Viagra (sildenafil citrate) treatment as determined by the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. Urology 2001;57:960–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherer RD, Fath MJ, Da Silva BA, et al. The importance of potency and durability in HIV patient antiretroviral therapy preferences: a telephone survey. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2005;19:794–802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraenkel L, Bogardus Jr ST, Concato J, et al. Treatment options in knee osteoarthritis: the patient’s perspective. Arch Intern Med 2004;164:1299–304
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warshaw E, Bowman T, Bodman M, et al. Satisfaction with onychomycosis treatment: pulse versus continuous dosing. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2003;93:373–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beecroft J, Zanon S, Lukic D, et al. Oral continuous positive airway pressure for sleep apnea: effectiveness, patient preference, and adherence. Chest 2003;124:2200–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMatteo MR. Variations in patients’ adherence to medical recommendations: a quantitative review of 50 years of research. Med Care 2004;42:200–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott MM, Schmitt B, Wallner E. Impact of medication nonadherence on coronary heart disease outcomes. A critical review. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:1921–9
   Google Scholar
• DiMatteo MR, Giordani PJ, Lepper HS, et al. Patient adherence and medical treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Med Care 2002;40:794–811
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roter D, Hall J, Merisca R, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to improve patient compliance. Med Care 1998;36:1138–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nimmo C, Chen D, Martinusen S, et al. Assessment of patient acceptance and inhalation technique of a pressurized aerosol inhaler and two breath-actuated devices. Ann Pharmacother 1993;27:922–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurikainen K, Silvasti M, Calderon P, et al. Comparison of bronchodilating effects of two salbutamol dry powder inhalers in asthmatic patients. Arzneimittelforschung (Progress in Drug Research) 1997;47:44–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappelleri J, Cefalu W, Rosenstock J, et al. Treatment satisfaction in type 2 diabetes: a comparison between an inhaled insulin regimen and a subcutaneous insulin regimen. Clin Ther 2002;24:552–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olden K, DeGarmo R, Jhingran P, et al. Patient satisfaction with qlosetron for the treatment of women with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:3139–46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nausieda PA, Pfeiffer RF, Tagliati M, et al. A multicenter, open-label, sequential study comparing preferences for carbidopalevodopa orally disintegrating tablets and conventional tablets in subjects with Parkinson’s disease. Clin Ther 2005;27:58–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topham C, Moore J. Patient preferences for chemotherapy schedules used in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer – a pilot study. Eur J Cancer Care 1997;6:291–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Young A, Topham C, Moore J, et al. A patient preference study comparing raltitrexed (‘Tomudex’) and bolus or infusional 5-fluorouracil regimens in advanced colorectal cancer: influence of side-effects and administration attributes. Eur J Cancer Care 1999;8:154–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox S, Finn C, Stetler L, et al. Development of the Facial Lines Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire and initial results for botulinum toxin type A-treated patients. Dermatol Surg 2003;29:444–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe J, Buxton M. Patients’ preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life-saving technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999;15:340–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe J, Van Haselen R, Buxton M, et al. Assessing patients’ preferences for characteristics associated with homeopathic and conventional treatment of asthma: a conjoint analysis study. Thorax 2002;57:503–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lainez M, Evers S, Kinge E, et al. Preference for rizatriptan 10-mg wafer vs. eletriptan 40-mg tablet for acute treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia 2006;26:246–56
   Google Scholar
• Eisen SA, Miller DK, Woodward RS, et al. The effect of prescribed daily dose frequency on patient medication compliance. Arch Intern Med 1990;150:1881–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton AJ, Cramer J, Pierce C. A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clin Ther 2001;23:1296–310
   Google Scholar
• Iskedjian M, Einarson TR, MacKeigan LD, et al. Relationship between daily dose frequency and adherence to antihypertensive pharmacotherapy: evidence from a meta-analysis. Clin Ther 2002;24:302–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cramer JA, Amonkar MM, Hebborn A, et al. Compliance and persistence with bisphosphonate dosing regimens among women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:1453–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kardas P. The DIACOM study (effect of DosIng frequency of oral Antidiabetic agents on the COMpliance and biochemical control of type 2 diabetes). Diabetes Obes Metab 2005;7: 722–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recker RR, Gallagher R, MacCosbe PE. Effect of dosing frequency on bisphosphonate medication adherence in a large longitudinal cohort of women. Mayo Clin Proc 2005;80: 856–61
   Google Scholar
• Brodie M, Fournoy R, Altman D, et al. Health information, the internet, and the digital divide. Health Aff (Millwood) 2000;19:255–65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Census Bureau. Educational attainment in the United States: 2003. Washington (DC): US Department of the Commerce; 2004
   Google Scholar
• Heiat A, Gross CP, Krumholz HM. Representation of the elderly, women, and minorities in heart failure clinical trials. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1682–8
   Google Scholar
• Murthy VH, Krumholz HM, Gross CP. Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. J Am Med Assoc 2004;291:2720–6
   Google Scholar
• Deber R, Kraetschmer N, Irvine J. What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making? Arch Intern Med 1996;156:1414–20
   Google Scholar
• Robinson A, Thomson R. Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools. Qual Health Care 2001;10(Suppl I): i34–i38
   Google Scholar
• Kasper JF, Mulley AG, Wennberg JE. Developing shared decision-making programs to improve the quality of health care. Qual Rev Bull 1992;18:183–90
   Google Scholar
• Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. J Am Med Assoc 1992;267:2221–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenna MT, Michaud CM, Murray CJ, et al. Assessing the burden of disease in the United States using disability-adjusted life years. Am J Prev Med 2005;28:415–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathias S, Warren E, Colwell H, et al. A new treatment satisfaction measure for asthmatics: a validation study. Qual Life Res 2000;9:873–82
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morin C, Gaulier B, Barry T, et al. Patients’ acceptance of psychological and pharmacological therapies for insomnia. Sleep 1992;15:302–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachert C, El-Akkad T. Patient preferences and sensory comparisons of three intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2002;89: 292–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reginster JY, Adami S, Lakatos P, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of once-monthly oral ibandronate in postmenopausal osteoporosis: 2-year results from the MOBILE study. Ann Rheum Dis 2006
   Google Scholar
• Granger AL, Fehnel SE, Hogue SL, et al. An assessment of patient preference and adherence to treatment with Wellbutrin SR: a web-based survey. J Affect Disord 2005
   Google Scholar
• Orsini LS, Rousculp MD, Long SR, et al. Health care utilization and expenditures in the United States: a study of osteoporosis-related fractures. Osteoporos Int 2005;16:359–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keen RW. Burden of osteoporosis and fractures. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2003;1:66–70
   PubMedGoogle Scholar