Skip to main content

Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Lifecycle

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research volume 13, pages 7–10 (2020)Cite this article

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 49.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Hoos A, Anderson J, Boutin M, Dewulf L, Geissler J, Johnston G, et al. Partnering with patients in the development and lifecycle of medicines: a call for action. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2015;49(6):929–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015580384.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith MY, Hammad TA, Metcalf M, Levitan B, Noel R, Wolka AM, et al. Patient engagement at a tipping point: the need for cultural change across patient, sponsor, and regulator stakeholders: insights from the DIA Conference, “Patient Engagement in Benefit Risk Assessment Throughout the Life Cycle of Medical Products”. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016;50(5):546–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479016662902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. de Bekker-Grob EW, Berlin C, Levitan B, Raza K, Christoforidi K, Cleemput I, et al. Giving patients’ preferences a voice in medical treatment life cycle: the PREFER Public-Private Project. Patient. 2017;10(3):263–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0222-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gonzalez JM, Johnson FR, Levitan B, Noel R, Peay H. Symposium title: preference evidence for regulatory decisions. Patient. 2018;11(5):467–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0311-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Norman R, Craig BM, Hansen P, Jonker MF, Rose J, Street DJ, et al. Issues in the design of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2019;12(3):281–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0346-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ostermann J, Brown DS, van Til JA, Bansback N, Légaré F, Marshall DA, et al. Support tools for preference-sensitive decisions in healthcare: where are we? Where do we go? How do we get there? Patient. 2019;12(5):439–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00372-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Berglas S, Jutai L, MacKean G, Weeks L. Patients’ perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: an exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review. Res Involve Engagem. 2016;2(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0036-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cleemput I, Devriese S, Kohn L, Westhovens R. A multi-criteria decision approach for ranking unmet needs in healthcare. Health Policy. 2018;122(8):878–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.06.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cook NS, Cave J, Holtorf A-P. Patient preference studies during early drug development: aligning stakeholders to ensure development plans meet patient needs. Front Med (Lausanne). 2019;6:82. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2019.00082.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Janssens R, Veldwijk J, Cleemput I, Simoens S, et al. Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(1):57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2018.09.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Janssens R, Russo S, van Overbeeke E, Whichello C, Harding S, Kübler J, et al. Patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: what do stakeholders think? Semi-structured qualitative interviews in Europe and the USA. Patient. 2019;12(5):513–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00367-w.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Benz HL, Lee T-H, Tsai J-H, Bridges JFP, Eggers S, Moncur M, et al. Advancing the use of patient preference information as scientific evidence in medical product evaluation: a summary report of the patient preference workshop. Patient. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00396-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Health Preference Study and Technology Register (HPSTR). International Academy of Health Preference Research (IAHPR). http://www.hpstr.org. Accessed 23 Nov 2019.

  14. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, 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(4):403–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vass C, Rigby D, Payne K. The role of qualitative research methods in discrete choice experiments. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(3):298–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16683934.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1739.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Levitan B, Getz K, Eisenstein E, Goldberg M, Harker M, Hesterlee S, et al. Assessing the financial value of patient engagement: a quantitative approach from CTTI’s Patient Groups and Clinical Trials Project. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018;52:220–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017716715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. The innovation imperative: the future of drug development. Part I: research methods and findings. A report by the Economist Intelligence Unit (commissioned by Paraxel). London: The Economist Intelligence Unit; 2018. https://druginnovation.eiu.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Parexel-innovations-in-drug-development_V10.pdf

  19. Whitty JA, Fraenkel L, Saigal CS, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Regier DA, Marshall DA. Assessment of individual patient preferences to inform clinical practice. Patient. 2017;10:519–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0254-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the symposium panellists (Nigel S. Cook, Michael Drummond, Fern Terris-Prestholt, Irina Cleemput, Hans L. Hillege, and Rocco Falchetto) and participants for joining the conversation and sharing their opinions and ideas. They also thank Irina Cleemput for providing input into an initial draft of this paper and Samare P.I. Huls for taking notes to assist with the commentary preparation during the symposium.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jennifer A. Whitty and Esther W. de Bekker-Grob are joint first authors for this commentary.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

    Jennifer A. Whitty

  2. National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration East of England, Cambridge, UK

    Jennifer A. Whitty

  3. Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Esther W. de Bekker-Grob

  4. Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Esther W. de Bekker-Grob

  5. Decision Support, Global Patient Access, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland

    Nigel S. Cook

  6. Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

    Fern Terris-Prestholt

  7. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK

    Michael Drummond

  8. International Porphyria Patient Network, Zurich, Switzerland

    Rocco Falchetto

  9. Department of Cardiology, Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Hans L. Hillege

Authors
  1. Jennifer A. Whitty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Esther W. de Bekker-Grob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nigel S. Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fern Terris-Prestholt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Drummond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rocco Falchetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hans L. Hillege
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JW and EBG conceived the topic and framework for the symposium panel and paper, chaired the panel and prepared a joint draft of the paper. NSC, FTP, MD, RF and HLH presented at the panel and contributed their academic ideas to the paper. All authors reviewed and revised the draft for academic content and approved the final version for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer A. Whitty.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Jennifer A. Whitty is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East of England (NIHR200177). Esther W. de Bekker-Grob is funded through a personal grant from The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO-Talent-Scheme-Veni-Grant No. 451-15-039) and supported by the EU/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative [2] Joint Undertaking PREFER grant no. 115966. Nigel S. Cook is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG and the work presented was funded by Novartis. RF is funded through out-of-pocket private donations to the IPPN. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Conflict of Interest

Jennifer A. Whitty, Rocco Falchetto, Hans L. Hillege, Fern Terris-Prestholt and Michael Drummond are members of the International Academy of Health Preference Research (IAHPR). Esther W. de Bekker-Grob is a member of IAHPR and IMI-PREFER. Nigel S. Cook is a member of IAHPR and IMI-PREFER and is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG. None of the authors have any conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

This article is part of the topical collection “From the International Academy of Health Preference Research”. Please refer the previous topical collection article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0346-0).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whitty, J.A., de Bekker-Grob, E.W., Cook, N.S. et al. Patient Preferences in the Medical Product Lifecycle. Patient 13, 7–10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00400-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00400-y