The provision of health care to patients with haemophilia through replacement of the deficient coagulation factor is the result of a complex interaction between patients, physicians and policy makers, each carrying their individual sets of preferences. Preferences of patients, physicians and pharmacists towards perceived viral safety, risk of inhibitor development, infusion frequency during prophylaxis, pharmaceutical dosage form, distribution modes and price were evaluated by conjoint analysis, using a discrete choice experiment. Overall 178 patients', 69 physicians and 58 pharmacists completed the study. Patients, physicians and pharmacists displayed preferences: (i) similar in direction and strength for risk of inhibitors and frequency of prophylaxis, (ii) similar in direction, but not in strength for perceived viral safety and price, with patients showing lower strength compared with physicians and pharmacists, and (iii) dissimilar in direction and/or strength for: (i) dosage form, which tested important only for pharmacists and (ii) distribution mode, which tested important for patients and physicians only. Our study provides evidence of the differences between different stakeholders in the preferences towards haemophilia replacement therapy, indicating that different opinions should be taken into account when planning optimal care.

Differences between patients', physicians' and pharmacists' preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: a discrete choice experiment / Mantovani, LORENZO GIOVANNI; M. S., Monzini; P. M., Mannucci; L., Scalone; M., Villa; A., Gringeri. - In: HAEMOPHILIA. - ISSN 1351-8216. - STAMPA. - 11:(2005), pp. 589-597. [10.1111/j.1365-2516.2005.01159.x]

Differences between patients', physicians' and pharmacists' preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: a discrete choice experiment

MANTOVANI, LORENZO GIOVANNI;
2005

Abstract

The provision of health care to patients with haemophilia through replacement of the deficient coagulation factor is the result of a complex interaction between patients, physicians and policy makers, each carrying their individual sets of preferences. Preferences of patients, physicians and pharmacists towards perceived viral safety, risk of inhibitor development, infusion frequency during prophylaxis, pharmaceutical dosage form, distribution modes and price were evaluated by conjoint analysis, using a discrete choice experiment. Overall 178 patients', 69 physicians and 58 pharmacists completed the study. Patients, physicians and pharmacists displayed preferences: (i) similar in direction and strength for risk of inhibitors and frequency of prophylaxis, (ii) similar in direction, but not in strength for perceived viral safety and price, with patients showing lower strength compared with physicians and pharmacists, and (iii) dissimilar in direction and/or strength for: (i) dosage form, which tested important only for pharmacists and (ii) distribution mode, which tested important for patients and physicians only. Our study provides evidence of the differences between different stakeholders in the preferences towards haemophilia replacement therapy, indicating that different opinions should be taken into account when planning optimal care.
2005
Differences between patients', physicians' and pharmacists' preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: a discrete choice experiment / Mantovani, LORENZO GIOVANNI; M. S., Monzini; P. M., Mannucci; L., Scalone; M., Villa; A., Gringeri. - In: HAEMOPHILIA. - ISSN 1351-8216. - STAMPA. - 11:(2005), pp. 589-597. [10.1111/j.1365-2516.2005.01159.x]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2005_conan.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 90.24 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
90.24 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/512791
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 51
social impact