Patient Preferences and Values in Decision Making for Migraines: A Systematic Literature Review
Table 3
Description of the main methods used for evaluating patient preferences and values.
Name
Description
Example
Ranking
Researchers ask patients to rate a set of outcomes on an ordered ‘‘Likert-type” scale (rating) or to rank them from the most to the least important. Rating can also use visual analog scale and in this case utilities can be derived
From Ref. [17]: ‘‘patients were ranked on a seven-point scale, with 1 being “not at all likely” and 7 being “extremely likely,” their likelihood of acceptance of and adherence to the new medication in scenarios in which either monthly or quarterly dosing is available”
Time trade-off
Researchers ask patients to choose between the health states as described in a clinical scenario during X years and a shorter life in normal health. The duration X is varied until the patient is unable to choose between the two options
From Ref. [30]: ‘‘three attacks were treated on each study medication. Assessment of subjective preference was evaluated, after which patients freely choose which study medication they wished to use to treat each of the three additional migraine attacks”
Standard gamble
Researchers ask patients to choose between two possible outcomes: a suboptimal health state that is certain and a gamble with one better (for example, full health) and one worse (for example, death or side effects) outcome possible. The probability of the gamble is varied during the experiment and the point of indifference is used to derive the utility of the health state
From Ref. [18]: ‘‘respondents valued a change from a 10% reduction in headache days per month to a 50% reduction more highly than avoiding the worst levels of adverse events. Nevertheless, respondents were willing to forgo some improvements in efficacy for less-severe adverse events”
