We have located links that may give you full text access.
Treatment Preference Research in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies.
Patient 2024 May 10
BACKGROUND: Treatment preference research can support shared and informed decision making for currently available atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, and simultaneously guide research and development for future therapies. In this systematic literature review, we aimed to provide an overview of preferences for AD treatments.
METHODS: This systematic literature review was conducted in the Medline and Embase (via Ovid) databases, supplemented by manual searching. Quantitative research published from 2010 to September 2023 that investigated preferences for AD treatments were included. Quality assessment was conducted by using the purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance checklist, and a checklist developed by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research.
RESULTS: In total, 207 references were screened after removing duplicates and 15 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in the US, followed by European countries. On average, people directly or indirectly affected by AD rate efficacy and treatment-related risk as the most important criteria when choosing an AD therapy. Participants are willing to increase risks in order to have a higher chance of achieving a certain benefit, e.g. reduction in itch or clearer skin. Participants have preferences for different modes of administration. On average, 68% (all full-text studies) and 87% (only discrete choice experiments [DCEs]) of quality criteria per reference were rated as fulfilled. DCEs received generally higher quality assessment scores than non-DCEs.
CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed that AD treatment preference research is limited. Diverse study designs hampered comparison and synthesis of the results. We recommend conducting more DCEs in this field to increase the likelihood of AD patients receiving the therapy that best fits their individual needs and preferences.
CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This protocol was published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023468757).
METHODS: This systematic literature review was conducted in the Medline and Embase (via Ovid) databases, supplemented by manual searching. Quantitative research published from 2010 to September 2023 that investigated preferences for AD treatments were included. Quality assessment was conducted by using the purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance checklist, and a checklist developed by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research.
RESULTS: In total, 207 references were screened after removing duplicates and 15 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in the US, followed by European countries. On average, people directly or indirectly affected by AD rate efficacy and treatment-related risk as the most important criteria when choosing an AD therapy. Participants are willing to increase risks in order to have a higher chance of achieving a certain benefit, e.g. reduction in itch or clearer skin. Participants have preferences for different modes of administration. On average, 68% (all full-text studies) and 87% (only discrete choice experiments [DCEs]) of quality criteria per reference were rated as fulfilled. DCEs received generally higher quality assessment scores than non-DCEs.
CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed that AD treatment preference research is limited. Diverse study designs hampered comparison and synthesis of the results. We recommend conducting more DCEs in this field to increase the likelihood of AD patients receiving the therapy that best fits their individual needs and preferences.
CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This protocol was published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023468757).
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app