Best-worst scaling preferences among patients with well-controlled epilepsy: novel questionnaire development

Author:

Terman Samuel W1,Aschmann Hélène E2,Hutton David1,Burke James F3

Affiliation:

1. University of Michigan

2. University of California San Francisco

3. Ohio State University

Abstract

Abstract Background Epilepsy is a common, serious condition characterized by an increased risk for seizures. Fortunately, seizure risk decreases with increasing seizure-free time on antiseizure medications (ASMs). Eventually, patients may consider whether to stop ASMs, which requires weighing treatment benefit versus burden. We developed a novel questionnaire to quantify patient preferences relevant to ASM decision-making. Methods Respondents rated items relevant to ASM decision-making (e.g., different seizure risks, various side effects, cost) on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, rated 0-100) how concerning they would find each item and then repeatedly chose the most and least concerning item from subsets (best-worst scaling, BWS). We pretested with five neurologists, then recruited adults with epilepsy who were seizure-free at least one year. Our primary outcomes were recruitment rate, and qualitative and Likert-based feedback. Secondary outcomes included VAS ratings and best-minus-worst scores (number of times an item was chosen as the most minus number of times an item was chosen as the least concerning). Results Thirty-one of 60 (52%) contacted patients completed the study. Most patients felt VAS questions were clear (28; 90%), easy to use (27; 87%), and assessed preferences well (25; 83%). Corresponding results for BWS questions were 27 (87%), 29 (97%), and 23 (77%). Physicians suggested adding a ‘warmup’ question showing a completed example and simplifying terminology. Patients suggested ways to clarify instructions. Cost, inconvenience of taking medication, and laboratory monitoring were the least concerning items. Cognitive side effects and a 50% seizure risk in the next year were the most concerning items. Twelve (39%) of patients made at least one ‘inconsistent choice’ for example ranking a higher seizure risk as lower concern compared with a lower seizure risk, though ‘inconsistent choices’ represented only 3% of all question blocks. Conclusions Our recruitment rate was favorable, most patients agreed the survey was clear, and we describe areas for survey improvement. ‘Inconsistent’ responses during this development phase may lead us to collapse seizure probability items into a single ‘seizure’ category. Evidence regarding how patients weigh benefits and harms is crucial inform clinical care and guideline development.

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

Reference54 articles.

1. Epilepsy. a public health imperative. Published online 2019. https://www.who.int/mental_health/neurology/epilepsy/report_2019/en/.

2. Treatment Outcomes in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Epilepsy Treated With Established and New Antiepileptic Drugs A 30-Year Longitudinal Cohort Study;Chen Z;JAMA Neurol,2018

3. Mortality and morbidity of patients with treated and untreated epilepsy in New Zealand;Hamilton KJ;Epilepsia,2020

4. Adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs;Perucca P;Lancet,2012

5. Quality of life of people with epilepsy: A European study;Baker GA;Epilepsia,1997

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3