Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Treatment Satisfaction Instruments for Different Purposes during a Product’s Lifecycle

Keeping the End in Mind

  • Review Article
  • Published:
The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This review investigates whether the development and implementation of treatment satisfaction instruments during a product’s lifecycle are informed by their purpose.

A basic literature review was performed between 2000 and 2010 using electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO®, and EMBASE) and the keywords ‘satisfaction’ and ‘questionnaire’ and ‘medication’ or ‘drug’. Relevant articles were reviewed to extract the following information: type of study; study objectives; treatment satisfaction instrument used; clinical condition/indication; purpose of instrument; development of instrument; association of satisfaction with other endpoint measures; and main results and conclusions. Of 875 abstracts, 80 articles were further considered. Treatment satisfaction instruments were most commonly used in observational studies and interventional clinical trials. The review indicated similarities regarding the development and validation of satisfaction instruments, such as using patient input to derive the items and exploring classical measurement properties specific to the target population.

Although some differences were apparent between instruments intended for use in clinical trials and clinical practice (e.g. the approaches used to enable the interpretation of satisfaction scores), the specificities of the implementation of treatment satisfaction during a product’s lifecycle were rarely considered.

By ‘keeping the end in mind’, data from treatment satisfaction instruments can help at three key stages: (i) product access to market: generating evidence as part of an overall value proposition to facilitate product reimbursement at a national level; (ii) market access to product: making the product available at a local level (e.g. local hospital formularies); and (iii) clinical practice: enhancing market penetration and product expansion after launch, and demonstrating value for prescribers. Furthermore, the development, validation, and interpretation of scores from treatment satisfaction instruments should e sensitive to the intended purpose.

By considering the stage in the product lifecycle when an instrument is to be used, treatment satisfaction instruments can be developed with the specific research purpose and target audience in mind — whether it be patients, payers, or prescribers. In the future, treatment satisfaction instruments will become increasingly important for informing decisions at the individual level, giving patients a voice towards their overall management and care, and enhancing the relationship between doctor and patient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med 1997 Dec; 45(12): 1829–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pascoe GC. Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis. Eval Program Plann 1983; 6(3-4): 185–210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rofail D, Gray R, Gournay K. The development and internal consistency of the satisfaction with Antipsychotic Medication Scale. Psychol Med 2005 Jul; 35(7): 1063–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rofail D, Regnault A, Baladi J-F, et al. Assessing treatment satisfaction during a product’s lifecycle to facilitate market access: definitions, frameworks, and measurement. ISPOR Connections 2010; 16(3): 7–10

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fayers P, Hays R. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: methods and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005

  6. Atkinson M, Kumar R, Cappelleri J, et al. Hierarchical construct validity of the treatment satisfaction questionnaire for medication TSQM version II among outpatient pharmacy consumers. Value Health 2005 Nov; 8: S9–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 Feb 26; 2: 12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Weaver M, Patrick DL, Markson LE, et al. Issues in the measurement of satisfaction with treatment. Am J Manag Care 1997 Apr; 3(4): 579–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rofail D, Abetz L, Viala M, et al. Satisfaction and adherence in patients with iron overload receiving iron chelation therapy as assessed by a newly developed patient instrument. Value Health 2009 Jan; 12(1): 109–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rejas J, Monfort J, Campillo M, et al. Criterion validity of the ARthritis Treatment Satisfaction (ARTS) questionnaire: patient satisfaction with treatment and need for switching therapy. Clin Drug Invest 2009; 29(8): 527–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Martin M, Patrick D, Bushnell D, et al. Development of the asthma treatment satisfaction measure. Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25(10): 2495–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kozma C, Slaton T, Monz B, et al. Development and validation of a patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire for inhalation devices. Treat Resp Med 2005; 4(1): 41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mathias SD, Warren EH, Colwell HH, et al. A new treatment satisfaction measure for asthmatics: a validation study. Qual Life Res 2000; 9(7): 873–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Campbell JL, Kiebert GM, Partridge MR. Development of the satisfaction with inhaled asthma treatment questionnaire. Eur Res Journal 2003 Jul; 22(1): 127–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Black L, Grove A, Morrill B. The psychometric validation of a US English satisfaction measure for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009; 7: 55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Coyne K, Joshua G, Kimel M, et al. Validation of the treatment satisfaction questionnaire for Crohn’s disease TSQ-C. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 2005; 50(2): 252–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Anderson R, Girman C, Pawaskar M, et al. Diabetes medication satisfaction tool. Diabetes Care 2009; 32(1): 51–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Donatti C, Wild D, Horblyuk R, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Satisfaction with Oral Anti-Diabetic Agent Scale SOADAS. Diab Res Clin Prac 2008; 80(1): 108–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Anderson RT, Skovlund SE, Marrero D, et al. Development and validation of the insulin treatment satisfaction questionnaire. Clin Ther 2004; 26(4): 565–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cappelleri JC, Gerber RA, Kourides IA, et al. Development and factor analysis of a questionnaire to measure patient satisfaction with injected and inhaled insulin for type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23(12): 1799–803

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gillham R, Bryant C, Kane K. Validation of the side effect and life satisfaction SEALS inventory. Seizure 2000 Oct; 9(7): 458–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dibenedetti D, Gondek K, Sagnier P, et al. The treatment satisfaction scale: a multidimensional instrument for the assessment of treatment satisfaction for erectile dysfunction patients and their partners. Eur Urol 2005; 48(3): 503–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kubin M, Trudeau E, Gondek K, et al. Early conceptual and linguistic development of a patient and partner treatment satisfaction scale TSS for erectile dysfunction. Eur Urol 2004; 46(6): 768–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Shikiar R, Flood E, Siddique R, et al. Development and validation of the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. Dig Dis Sci 2005; 50(11): 2025–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ruiz M, Pardo A, Rejas J, et al. Development and validation of the Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire SATMED-Q. Value Health 2008; 11(5): 913–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bharmal M, Payne K, Atkinson M, et al. Validation of an abbreviated Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication TSQM-9 among patients on antihypertensive medications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009; 7: 36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ruiz MA, Pardo A, Martinez de la Casa JM, et al. Development of a specific questionnaire measuring patient satisfaction with glaucoma treatment: Glausat. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2010; 17(3): 131–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hill CD, Fehnel SE, Bobula JD, et al. Development and preliminary validation of the Menopause Symptoms Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire MS-TSQ. Menopause 2007; 14(6): 1047–55

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Revicki D, Kimel M, Beusterien K, et al. Validation of the revised Patient Perception of Migraine Questionnaire: measuring satisfaction with acute migraine treatment. Headache 2006; 46(2): 240–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Patrick DL, Martin ML, Bushnell DM, et al. Measuring satisfaction with migraine treatment: expectations, importance, outcomes, and global ratings. Clin Ther 2003; 25(11): 2920–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Abetz L, Coombs JH, Keininger DL, et al. Development of the cancer therapy satisfaction questionnaire: item generation and content validity testing. Value Health 2005; 8Suppl. 1: S41–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Flood EM, Beusterien KM, Green H, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Osteoporosis Patient Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (OPSAT-Q TM), a novel measure to assess satisfaction with bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal women. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006 Jul 11; 4: 42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Piault E, Evans C, Espindle D, et al. Development and validation of the Overactive Bladder Satisfaction OAB-S questionnaire. Neurourol Urodyn 2008; 27(3): 179–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Evans C, Trudeau E, Mertzanis P, et al. Development and validation of the Pain Treatment Satisfaction Scale PTSS: a patient satisfaction questionnaire for use in patients with chronic or acute pain. Pain 2004; 112(3): 254–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Baró E, Casado A, GarcÆa C, et al. Assessing satisfaction with pain medication in primary care patients: development and psychometric validation of a new measure. Clin Ther 2004; 26(7): 1124–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Vernon M, Revicki D, Awad A, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) to assess satisfaction with antipsychotic medication among schizophrenia patients. Schiz Res 2010 May; 118(1-3): 271–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bech P, Moses R, Gomis RN. The effect of prandial glucose regulation with repaglinide on treatment satisfaction, wellbeing and health status in patients with pharmacotherapy naïve type 2 diabetes: a placebo-controlled, multicentre study. Qual Life Res 2003 Jun; 12(4): 413–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brod M, Cobden D, Lammert M, et al. Examining correlates of treatment satisfaction for injectable insulin in type 2 diabetes: lessons learned from a clinical trial comparing biphasic and basal analogues. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007; 5: 8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Best JH, Boye KS, Rubin RR, et al. Improved treatment satisfaction and weight-related quality of life with exenatide once weekly or twice daily. Diab Med 2009 Jul; 26(7): 722–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Gharabawi G, Greenspan A, Rupnow M, et al. Reduction in psychotic symptoms as a predictor of patient satisfaction with antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia: data from a randomized double-blind trial. BMS Psych 2006; 6: 45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Renzi C, Picardi A, Abeni D, et al. Association of dissatisfaction with care and psychiatric morbidity with poor treatment compliance. Arch Derm 2002 Mar; 138(3): 337–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Weiss K, Paramore L, Liljas B, et al. Patient satisfaction with budesonide turbuhaler versus triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler in a managed care setting. J Asthma 2005 Nov; 42(9): 769–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Massiou H, Pradalier A, Donnet A, et al. Evaluation of efficacy, tolerability, and treatment satisfaction with almotriptan in 3 consecutive migraine attacks. Eur Neurol 2006; 55(4): 198–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Perimenis P, Roumeguere T, Heidler H, et al. Evaluation of patient expectations and treatment satisfaction after 1-year tadalafil therapy for erectile dysfunction: the DETECT study. J Sex Med 2009 Jan; 6(1): 257–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Newman LC, Cady RK, Landy S, et al. Treatment satisfaction and efficacy of the rapid release formulation of sumatriptan 100mg tablets utilising an early intervention paradigm in patients previously unsatisfied with sumatriptan. Int J Clin Prac 2008 Dec; 62(12): 1889–99

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Gasquet I, Tcherny L, Lépine J, et al. Patient satisfaction with psychotropic drugs: sensitivity to change and relationship to clinical status, quality-of-life, compliance and effectiveness of treatment: results from a nation-wide 6-month prospective study. Eur Psych 2006 Dec; 21(8): 531–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Landy S, DeRossett S, Rapoport A, et al. Two double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-dose studies of sumatriptan/naproxen sodium in the acute treatment of migraine: function, productivity, and satisfaction outcomes. MedGenMed 2007; 9(2): 53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Biderman A, Noff E, Harris S, et al. Treatment satisfaction of diabetic patients: what are the contributing factors? Fam Prac 2009 Apr; 26(2): 102–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Markson LE, Vollmer WM, Fitterman L, et al. Insight into patient dissatisfaction with asthma treatment. Arch Int Med 2001 Feb 12; 161(3): 379–84

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Pollack M, Purayidathil F, Bolge S, et al. Patient-reported tolerability issues with oral antidiabetic agents: associations with adherence; treatment satisfaction and healthrelated quality of life. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010 Feb; 87(2): 204–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Nett RB, Tiseo PJ, Almas M, et al. Patient satisfaction with eletriptan in the acute treatment of migraine in primary care. Int J Clin Prac 2007 Oct; 61(10): 1677–85

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, et al. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics 2000 Jan; 17(1): 13–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Rofail D, Abetz L, Gater A, Brown C. The significance of patient-reported outcomes to facilitate market access during a product’s lifecycle. ISPOR 11th Annual European Congress; 2008 Nov 8–11; Athens

  54. Novak A, de la Loge C, Abetz L, et al. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing: an international study of user acceptability. Contraception 2003 Mar; 67(3): 187–94 au55._Novak, Abetz L, de la Loge C. Validation of vaginal contraception acceptability questionnaire. ISPOR 4th Annual European Congress; 2001 Nov 11–13; Cannes

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Novak A, Abetz L, de la Loge C. Validation of vaginal contraception acceptability questionnaire. ISPOR 4th Annual European Congress; 2001 Nov 11-13; Cannes

  56. NHS. London New Drugs Group. APC/DTC briefing document. London: NHS, 2008

  57. Novak A, de la Loge C, Abetz L. Development and validation of an acceptability and satisfaction questionnaire for a contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22(4): 245–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Coulter A. Do patients want a choice and does it work? BMJ 2010; 341: c4989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Secretary of State for Health. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. London: Stationery Office, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bertini L, Tagariello V, Mancini S, et al. 0.75% and 0.5% ropivacaine for axillary brachial plexus block: a clinical comparison with 0.5% bupivacaine. Reg Anesth Pain Med 1999 Nov; 24(6): 514–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Rawal N, Allvin R, Axelsson K, et al. Patient-controlled regional analgesia (PCRA) at home: controlled comparison between bupivacaine and ropivacaine brachial plexus analgesia. Anesthesiology 2002 Jun; 96(6): 1290–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Dubois D, Gilet H, Viala-Danten M, et al. Psychometric performance and clinical meaningfulness of the Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life questionnaire in prucalopride (RESOLOR) trials for chronic constipation. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2010 Feb; 22(2): e54–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. EMEA. Committee for medicinal products for human use summary of positive opinion for Resolor. International Nonproprietary Name (INN): prucalopride. 23-7-2009. London: EMEA, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  64. Arnould B. Patient-reported outcomes and clinical practice. From measurement instruments to decision tools: much more than a simple change in format. PRO Newsletter 2006; 36: 21–4

    Google Scholar 

  65. Cole M, McLean V. Therapeutic relationships re-defined. Occ Ther Men Health 2003; 19: 33–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study and preparation of the paper was provided by Mapi Values only; no funding was provided by Bayer Schering Pharma AG.

Diana Rofail conceived and designed the study, and provided senior directorial support during implementation of the project. Fiona Taylor implemented the literature search and summarized the findings. All authors interpreted the findings and developed the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mapi Values, Adelphi Mill, Bollington, Macclesfield, Cheshire, UK

    Diana Rofail & Fiona Taylor

  2. Mapi Values, Le D’Aubigny, Lyon, France

    Antoine Regnault

  3. Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany

    Anna Filonenko

Authors
  1. Diana Rofail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fiona Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antoine Regnault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anna Filonenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Rofail.

Additional information

Key points for decision makers

• The development, validation, and interpretation of scores from treatment satisfaction instruments should be sensitive to the intended purpose; therefore, it is important to always ‘keep the end in mind’

• Furthermore, it is important that treatment satisfaction data are communicated with the target audience in mind

• Treatment satisfaction data will become increasingly important in informing decisions as healthcare systems move to a more patient-centered approach

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rofail, D., Taylor, F., Regnault, A. et al. Treatment Satisfaction Instruments for Different Purposes during a Product’s Lifecycle. Patient-Patient-Centered-Outcome-Res 4, 227–240 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11595280-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11595280-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation