CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 57Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMental Health and Patient InvolvementEconomic and Environmental Valuation

What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders

Open access
Eiring, Øystein, Landmark, Brynjar Fowels, Aas, Endre, Salkeld, Glenn, Nylenna, Magne, Nytrøen, Kari·2015·BMJ Open
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007848PMC PMC4390680
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patients' preferences for outcomes associated with psychoactive medications. SETTING/DESIGN: Systematic review of stated preference studies. No settings restrictions were applied. PARTICIPANTS/ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies containing quantitative data regarding the relative value adults with mental disorders place on treatment outcomes. Studies with high risk of bias were excluded. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We restricted the scope of our review to preferences for outcomes, including the consequences from, attributes of, and health states associated with particular medications or medication classes, and process outcomes. RESULTS: After reviewing 11 215 citations, 16 studies were included in the systematic review. These studies reported the stated preferences from patients with schizophrenia (n=9), depression (n=4), bipolar disorder (n=2) and attention deficit hyperactive disorder (n=1). The median sample size was 81. Side effects and symptom outcomes outnumbered functioning and process outcomes. Severe disease and hospitalisation were reported to be least desirable. Patients with schizophrenia tended to value disease states as higher and side effects as lower, compared to other stakeholder groups. In depression, the ability to cope with activities was found to be more important than a depressed mood, per se. Patient preferences could not consistently be predicted from demographic or disease variables. Only a limited number of potentially important outcomes had been investigated. Benefits to patients were not part of the purpose in 9 of the 16 studies, and in 10 studies patients were not involved when the outcomes to present were selected. CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence exists on the relative value patients with mental disorders place on medication-associated outcomes. To increase patient-centredness in decisions involving psychoactive drugs, further research-with outcomes elicited from patients, and for a larger number of conditions-should be undertaken. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42013005685.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007848

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evidence indicates that a reduction in depressive symptoms may not be the single most important outcome to patients, but rather factors such as the ability to participate in everyday activities and return to work.

    “Importantly, evidence indicates that a reduction in depressive symptoms may not be the single most important outcome to patients, but rather factors such as the ability to participate in everyday activities and return to work.63 64”

    From Should antidepressants be used for major depressive disorder? (2020) · cites this paper as [63]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [2]Picker H Moving beyond measurement. Oxford, UK: Picker Institute Europe, 2012/13 http://www.pickereurope.org/assets/content/pdf/Annual_Reviews_&_Financial_Statements/2012–13%20Annual%20Review%20FINAL.pdf
  2. [3]IAPO. What is Patient-Centred Healthcare? A review of Definitions and Principles. International Alliance of Patients’ Organizations (IAPO), 2004: 37.
  3. [10]Marshall D A Radical Idea: Make Patient Preferences an Integral Part of Health Care. The Official News & Technical Journal of The International Society For Pharmacoeconomics And Outcomes Research, 2012–2013 http://www.ispor.org/News/articles/Jan-Feb2013/presidents-message.asp (accessed 5 May 2014).
  4. [74]NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2013 http://www.nice.org.uk/media/D45/1E/GuideToMethodsTechnologyAppraisal2013.pdf 27905712

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Eiring, Ø., Landmark, B. F., Aas, E., Salkeld, G., Nylenna, M., & Nytrøen, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Innlandet Hospital Trust (NO)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Nytrøen, Kari
ORCID
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-04
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
e007848
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007848
PMC
PMC4390680
OpenAlex
W2326546984
Cited by
57
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Funders
Norges Forskningsråd
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
Keywords
patient preferences, psychotropic drugs, mental illness, schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, adverse drug reactions, treatment outcomes, patient-centered care, stated preference, hospitalization, functional outcome
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Psychotropic Drugs, Treatment Outcome, Patient Preference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review