Advertisement

Patient-Important Outcomes in the Long-Term Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: A Mixed-Methods Approach Investigating Relative Preferences and a Proposed Taxonomy

  • Øystein Eiring
  • Magne Nylenna
  • Kari NytrøenEmail author
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

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.

Objective

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.

Method

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.

Results

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 [40]), quality of life (65 [53]), work/school functioning (58 [48]), and social functioning (54 [50]). 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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Focus Group Bipolar Disorder Aripiprazole Acute Episode Importance Weight 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Funding

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.

Contributors

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.

Supplementary material

40271_2015_128_MOESM1_ESM.docx (83 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 82 kb)
40271_2015_128_MOESM2_ESM.docx (81 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 81 kb)
40271_2015_128_MOESM3_ESM.docx (77 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 77 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Merikangas KR, Jin R, He JP, Kessler RC, Lee S, Sampson NA, et al. Prevalence and correlates of bipolar spectrum disorder in the world mental health survey initiative. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(3):241–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
  8. 8.
    Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miura T, Noma H, Furakawa TA, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatments in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1:351–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fleurence R, Whicher D, Dunham K, Gerson J, Newhouse R, Luce B. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s role in advancing methods for patient-centered outcomes research. Med Care. 2015;53(1):2–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sacristan JA. Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Breckenridge A. Patient opinions and preferences in drug development and regulatory decision making. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2011;8(1):e1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Weijden T, Legare F, Boivin A, Burgers JS, van Veenendaal H, Stiggelbout AM, et al. How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol. Implement Sci. 2010;5:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(4):213–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryan M, Kinghorn P, Entwistle VA, Francis JJ. Valuing patients’ experiences of healthcare processes: towards broader applications of existing methods. Soc Sci Med. 2014;106:194–203.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eiring Ø, Landmark BF, Aas E, Salkeld G, Nylenna M, Nytrøen K. What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e007848.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chrzan K, Golovashkina N. An empirical test of six stated importance measures. Int J Market Res. 2006;48(6):717–40.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schlereth C, Eckert C, Schaaf R, Skiera B. Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: a classification and merge of trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types. Eur J Oper Res. 2014;238(1):185–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scholz SW, Meissner M, Decker R. Measuring consumer preferences for complex products: a compositional approach based on paired comparisons. J Mark Res. 2010;47(4):685–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bridges JF, Slawik L, Schmeding A, Reimer J, Naber D, Kuhnigk O. A test of concordance between patient and psychiatrist valuations of multiple treatment goals for schizophrenia. Health Expect. 2013;16(2):164–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fraenkel L, Chodkowski D, Lim J, Garcia-Tsao G. Patients’ preferences for treatment of hepatitis C. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(1):45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pavlova M, Groot W, van Merode G. The importance of quality, access and price to health care consumers in Bulgaria: a self-explicated approach. Int J Health Plan Manag. 2003;18(4):343–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II138–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    The Guidelines International Network. International Guideline Library [database]. http://www.g-i-n.net. Accessed Oct 2014.
  27. 27.
    National Guideline Clearinghouse. Resource for evidence-based clinical practice guidelines [database]. http://www.guideline.gov. Accessed Oct 2014.
  28. 28.
    Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI). Patient decision aids. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/AZinvent.php. Accessed Nov 2014.
  29. 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. 30.
  31. 31.
    Masadeh MA. Focus group: review and practices. Int J Appl Sci Technol. 2012;2(10):63–8.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Opmeer BC, de Borgie CA, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM. Assessing preferences regarding healthcare interventions that involve non-health outcomes: an overview of clinical studies. Patient. 2010;3(1):1–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Manjunath R, Hauber AB, Burch SP, Thompson TR. Factors that affect adherence to bipolar disorder treatments: a stated-preference approach. Med Care. 2007;45(6):545–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Revicki DA, Hanlon J, Martin S, Gyulai L, Nassir Ghaemi S, Lynch F, et al. Patient-based utilities for bipolar disorder-related health states. J Affect Disord. 2005;87(2–3):203–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vieta A, Badia X, Alvarez E, Sacristan JA. Which nontraditional outcomes should be measured in healthcare decision-making in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2012;48(4):198–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sattler H, Hensel-Börner S. A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F, editors. conjoint measurement. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2007. p. 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Von Nitzsch R, Weber M. The effect of attribute ranges on weights in multiattribute utility measurements. Manag Sci. 1993;39(8):937–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paykel ES, Abbott R, Morriss R, Hayhurst H, Scott J. Sub-syndromal and syndromal symptoms in the longitudinal course of bipolar disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;189:118–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mair FS, May CR. Thinking about the burden of treatment. BMJ. 2014;349:g6680.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dell’Osso L, Pini S, Cassano GB, Mastrocinque C, Seckinger RA, Saettoni M, et al. Insight into illness in patients with mania, mixed mania, bipolar depression and major depression with psychotic features. Bipolar Disord. 2002;4(5):315–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 43.
    Riabacke M, Danielson M, Ekenberg L. State-of-the-art prescriptive criteria weight elicitation. Adv Decis Sci. 2012;. doi: 10.1155/2012/276584.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Basu A, Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(2):112–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    van Gestel A, Grutters J, Schouten J, Webers C, Beckers H, Joore M, et al. The role of the expected value of individualized care in cost-effectiveness analyses and decision making. Value Health. 2012;15(1):13–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health ServicesOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of Quality and Patient SafetyInnlandet Hospital TrustBrumunddalNorway
  4. 4.Oslo University Hospital, RikshospitaletOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations