Patient-Important Outcomes in the Long-Term Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: A Mixed-Methods Approach Investigating Relative Preferences and a Proposed Taxonomy
- 290 Downloads
In patient-centered healthcare, the assessment and selection of treatment should be based on outcomes important to patients and the relative importance patients place on these outcomes. The evidence base on long-term treatment outcomes important to patients with bipolar disorder is inconclusive.
The aim of this study was to investigate the relative importance of patient-important outcomes in bipolar disorder, and to construct a holistic and logically sound shortlist of treatment outcomes relevant in the evaluation and selection of pharmacological treatment in bipolar disorder.
Overall, 22 outpatients from southern and eastern Norway participated in four focus groups, and suggested outcomes important in treatment decisions. Quantitative, relative importance weights for treatment outcomes identified in literature reviews were elicited from each participant, employing a self-explicated approach (SEA). The method combined a ranking- and rating-stated preference exercise and resulted in a 0–100 SEA-score for each outcome.
Outcomes from the literature accommodated the outcomes suggested in the focus groups. Mean age in the sample was 42 years and 64 % were women. All patients completed the exercises with consistent results. The most important outcomes were severe depression (median SEA 95 [interquartile range 26]), severe mania (76 ), quality of life (65 ), work/school functioning (58 ), and social functioning (54 ). Avoiding severe mania was significantly more important to patients with bipolar disorder type I compared with patients with type II. Outcome scores correlated strongly (p < 0.01) across the ranking and rating exercises. Based on the results, a simplified and consistent set of outcomes was constructed.
Patients’ preferences for outcomes in the long-term treatment of bipolar disorder vary considerably. To advance patient-centered healthcare, we propose that researchers, clinical guideline producers, and patient–clinician dyads integrate a taxonomy of patient-important outcomes, such as constructed in this study, when assessing treatment options.
KeywordsFocus Group Bipolar Disorder Aripiprazole Acute Episode Importance Weight
The authors would like to thank Brynjar Landmark (Psychiatrist, Ph.D.) and Endre Aas (Librarian) for their valuable help in identifying medication-associated outcomes relevant to bipolar disorder from clinical practice guidelines and textbooks.
Financial support for this study was partly provided by a grant from the Norwegian Research Council. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, and writing and publishing the report.
Conflict of interest
Øystein Eiring, Magne Nylenna, and Kari Nytrøen declare no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Øystein Eiring and Kari Nytrøen were involved in the study design, literature search, focus-group planning and conduction, data analyses and interpretation, and writing and revising the paper. Magne Nylenna was involved in the study design, data synthesis, data interpretation, and revision of the manuscript. All authors had full access to the data, approved the final draft, and take responsibility for the accuracy of the analysis and the integrity of the data. Øystein Eiring and Kari Nytrøen are guarantors for the article.
- 2.Deutsche Gesellschaft für Bipolare Störungen (DGBS) DGfrP, Psychotherapie und Nervenheilkunde DGPPN. DGBS e.V. und DGPPN e.V.: S3-Leitlinie zur Diagnostik und Therapie Bipolarer Störungen. Langversion, 2012.Google Scholar
- 3.Singapore Ministry of Health. Clinical practice guidelines, bipolar disorder. 2011. https://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/healthprofessionalsportal/doctors/guidelines/cpg_medical/2011/cpgmed_bipolar_disorder.html. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.
- 4.Yatham LN, Kennedy SH, Parikh SV, Schaffer A, Beaulieu S, Alda M, et al. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) collaborative update of CANMAT guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder: update 2013. Bipolar Disord. 2013;15:1–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Post RM Keck P, Solomon D. Bipolar disorder in adults: choosing maintenance treatment. UpToDate. 2014. http://www.uptodate.com/contents/bipolar-disorder-in-adults-maintenance-treatment?source=see_link. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.
- 6.Bipolar disorders in adults. BMJ Best Pract. 2013. http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/monograph/488/treatment/step-by-step.html. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.
- 7.Helsedirektoratet. Nasjonal fagleg retningsline for utgreiing og behandling av bipolare lidingar. Helsebiblioteket. 2012. http://www.helsebiblioteket.no/retningslinjer/bipolare-lidingar/vedlikehaldsbehandling. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.
- 19.Chrzan K, Golovashkina N. An empirical test of six stated importance measures. Int J Market Res. 2006;48(6):717–40.Google Scholar
- 26.The Guidelines International Network. International Guideline Library [database]. http://www.g-i-n.net. Accessed Oct 2014.
- 27.National Guideline Clearinghouse. Resource for evidence-based clinical practice guidelines [database]. http://www.guideline.gov. Accessed Oct 2014.
- 28.Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI). Patient decision aids. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/AZinvent.php. Accessed Nov 2014.
- 29.Grudens-Schuck N, Allen B, Larson K. Focus group fundamentals (methodology brief). 2004. https://store.extension.iastate.edu/Product/Focus-Group-Fundamentals-Methodology-Brief.
- 30.Guidelines for conducting a focus group. 2005. http://assessment.aas.duke.edu/documents/How_to_Conduct_a_Focus_Group.pdf.
- 31.Masadeh MA. Focus group: review and practices. Int J Appl Sci Technol. 2012;2(10):63–8.Google Scholar
- 35.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.Google Scholar
- 42.Bridges JF, Onukwugha E, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Patient preference methods: a patient-centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 2007;13(6):4–7.Google Scholar
- 46.Listing relevant outcomes. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org