Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient-Important Outcomes in the Long-Term Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: A Mixed-Methods Approach Investigating Relative Preferences and a Proposed Taxonomy

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

Abstract

Background

In patient-centered healthcare, the assessment and selection of treatment should be based on outcomes important to patients and the relative importance patients place on these outcomes. The evidence base on long-term treatment outcomes important to patients with bipolar disorder is inconclusive.

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the relative importance of patient-important outcomes in bipolar disorder, and to construct a holistic and logically sound shortlist of treatment outcomes relevant in the evaluation and selection of pharmacological treatment in bipolar disorder.

Method

Overall, 22 outpatients from southern and eastern Norway participated in four focus groups, and suggested outcomes important in treatment decisions. Quantitative, relative importance weights for treatment outcomes identified in literature reviews were elicited from each participant, employing a self-explicated approach (SEA). The method combined a ranking- and rating-stated preference exercise and resulted in a 0–100 SEA-score for each outcome.

Results

Outcomes from the literature accommodated the outcomes suggested in the focus groups. Mean age in the sample was 42 years and 64 % were women. All patients completed the exercises with consistent results. The most important outcomes were severe depression (median SEA 95 [interquartile range 26]), severe mania (76 [40]), quality of life (65 [53]), work/school functioning (58 [48]), and social functioning (54 [50]). Avoiding severe mania was significantly more important to patients with bipolar disorder type I compared with patients with type II. Outcome scores correlated strongly (p < 0.01) across the ranking and rating exercises. Based on the results, a simplified and consistent set of outcomes was constructed.

Conclusions

Patients’ preferences for outcomes in the long-term treatment of bipolar disorder vary considerably. To advance patient-centered healthcare, we propose that researchers, clinical guideline producers, and patient–clinician dyads integrate a taxonomy of patient-important outcomes, such as constructed in this study, when assessing treatment options.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Merikangas KR, Jin R, He JP, Kessler RC, Lee S, Sampson NA, et al. Prevalence and correlates of bipolar spectrum disorder in the world mental health survey initiative. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(3):241–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Bipolare Störungen (DGBS) DGfrP, Psychotherapie und Nervenheilkunde DGPPN. DGBS e.V. und DGPPN e.V.: S3-Leitlinie zur Diagnostik und Therapie Bipolarer Störungen. Langversion, 2012.

  3. Singapore Ministry of Health. Clinical practice guidelines, bipolar disorder. 2011. https://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/healthprofessionalsportal/doctors/guidelines/cpg_medical/2011/cpgmed_bipolar_disorder.html. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.

  4. Yatham LN, Kennedy SH, Parikh SV, Schaffer A, Beaulieu S, Alda M, et al. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) collaborative update of CANMAT guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder: update 2013. Bipolar Disord. 2013;15:1–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Post RM Keck P, Solomon D. Bipolar disorder in adults: choosing maintenance treatment. UpToDate. 2014. http://www.uptodate.com/contents/bipolar-disorder-in-adults-maintenance-treatment?source=see_link. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.

  6. Bipolar disorders in adults. BMJ Best Pract. 2013. http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/monograph/488/treatment/step-by-step.html. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.

  7. Helsedirektoratet. Nasjonal fagleg retningsline for utgreiing og behandling av bipolare lidingar. Helsebiblioteket. 2012. http://www.helsebiblioteket.no/retningslinjer/bipolare-lidingar/vedlikehaldsbehandling. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.

  8. Dolan JG. Multi-criteria clinical decision support: a primer on the use of multiple criteria decision making methods to promote evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Miura T, Noma H, Furakawa TA, et al. Comparative efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological treatments in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1:351–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fleurence R, Whicher D, Dunham K, Gerson J, Newhouse R, Luce B. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s role in advancing methods for patient-centered outcomes research. Med Care. 2015;53(1):2–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Sacristan JA. Patient-centered medicine and patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes for individual patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R. Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ. 2010;341:c5146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Breckenridge A. Patient opinions and preferences in drug development and regulatory decision making. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2011;8(1):e1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. van der Weijden T, Legare F, Boivin A, Burgers JS, van Veenendaal H, Stiggelbout AM, et al. How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol. Implement Sci. 2010;5:10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(4):213–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ryan M, Kinghorn P, Entwistle VA, Francis JJ. Valuing patients’ experiences of healthcare processes: towards broader applications of existing methods. Soc Sci Med. 2014;106:194–203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Eiring Ø, Landmark BF, Aas E, Salkeld G, Nylenna M, Nytrøen K. What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e007848.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Chrzan K, Golovashkina N. An empirical test of six stated importance measures. Int J Market Res. 2006;48(6):717–40.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schlereth C, Eckert C, Schaaf R, Skiera B. Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: a classification and merge of trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types. Eur J Oper Res. 2014;238(1):185–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Scholz SW, Meissner M, Decker R. Measuring consumer preferences for complex products: a compositional approach based on paired comparisons. J Mark Res. 2010;47(4):685–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bridges JF, Slawik L, Schmeding A, Reimer J, Naber D, Kuhnigk O. A test of concordance between patient and psychiatrist valuations of multiple treatment goals for schizophrenia. Health Expect. 2013;16(2):164–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fraenkel L, Chodkowski D, Lim J, Garcia-Tsao G. Patients’ preferences for treatment of hepatitis C. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(1):45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pavlova M, Groot W, van Merode G. The importance of quality, access and price to health care consumers in Bulgaria: a self-explicated approach. Int J Health Plan Manag. 2003;18(4):343–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lenert L, Kaplan RM. Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II138–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. The Guidelines International Network. International Guideline Library [database]. http://www.g-i-n.net. Accessed Oct 2014.

  27. National Guideline Clearinghouse. Resource for evidence-based clinical practice guidelines [database]. http://www.guideline.gov. Accessed Oct 2014.

  28. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI). Patient decision aids. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/AZinvent.php. Accessed Nov 2014.

  29. Grudens-Schuck N, Allen B, Larson K. Focus group fundamentals (methodology brief). 2004. https://store.extension.iastate.edu/Product/Focus-Group-Fundamentals-Methodology-Brief.

  30. Guidelines for conducting a focus group. 2005. http://assessment.aas.duke.edu/documents/How_to_Conduct_a_Focus_Group.pdf.

  31. Masadeh MA. Focus group: review and practices. Int J Appl Sci Technol. 2012;2(10):63–8.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Opmeer BC, de Borgie CA, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM. Assessing preferences regarding healthcare interventions that involve non-health outcomes: an overview of clinical studies. Patient. 2010;3(1):1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Manjunath R, Hauber AB, Burch SP, Thompson TR. Factors that affect adherence to bipolar disorder treatments: a stated-preference approach. Med Care. 2007;45(6):545–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Revicki DA, Hanlon J, Martin S, Gyulai L, Nassir Ghaemi S, Lynch F, et al. Patient-based utilities for bipolar disorder-related health states. J Affect Disord. 2005;87(2–3):203–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Vieta A, Badia X, Alvarez E, Sacristan JA. Which nontraditional outcomes should be measured in healthcare decision-making in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2012;48(4):198–207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sattler H, Hensel-Börner S. A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In: Gustafsson A, Herrmann A, Huber F, editors. conjoint measurement. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2007. p. 67–76.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Von Nitzsch R, Weber M. The effect of attribute ranges on weights in multiattribute utility measurements. Manag Sci. 1993;39(8):937–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Paykel ES, Abbott R, Morriss R, Hayhurst H, Scott J. Sub-syndromal and syndromal symptoms in the longitudinal course of bipolar disorder. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;189:118–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mair FS, May CR. Thinking about the burden of treatment. BMJ. 2014;349:g6680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Dell’Osso L, Pini S, Cassano GB, Mastrocinque C, Seckinger RA, Saettoni M, et al. Insight into illness in patients with mania, mixed mania, bipolar depression and major depression with psychotic features. Bipolar Disord. 2002;4(5):315–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bridges JF, Onukwugha E, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Patient preference methods: a patient-centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 2007;13(6):4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Riabacke M, Danielson M, Ekenberg L. State-of-the-art prescriptive criteria weight elicitation. Adv Decis Sci. 2012;. doi:10.1155/2012/276584.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Basu A, Meltzer D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(2):112–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. van Gestel A, Grutters J, Schouten J, Webers C, Beckers H, Joore M, et al. The role of the expected value of individualized care in cost-effectiveness analyses and decision making. Value Health. 2012;15(1):13–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Listing relevant outcomes. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Brynjar Landmark (Psychiatrist, Ph.D.) and Endre Aas (Librarian) for their valuable help in identifying medication-associated outcomes relevant to bipolar disorder from clinical practice guidelines and textbooks.

Funding

Financial support for this study was partly provided by a grant from the Norwegian Research Council. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, and writing and publishing the report.

Conflict of interest

Øystein Eiring, Magne Nylenna, and Kari Nytrøen declare no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Contributors

Øystein Eiring and Kari Nytrøen were involved in the study design, literature search, focus-group planning and conduction, data analyses and interpretation, and writing and revising the paper. Magne Nylenna was involved in the study design, data synthesis, data interpretation, and revision of the manuscript. All authors had full access to the data, approved the final draft, and take responsibility for the accuracy of the analysis and the integrity of the data. Øystein Eiring and Kari Nytrøen are guarantors for the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, 0318, Oslo, Norway

    Øystein Eiring, Magne Nylenna & Kari Nytrøen

  2. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway

    Øystein Eiring & Magne Nylenna

  3. Department of Quality and Patient Safety, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Postbox 104, 2481, Brumunddal, Norway

    Kari Nytrøen

  4. Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway

    Kari Nytrøen

Authors
  1. Øystein Eiring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Magne Nylenna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kari Nytrøen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kari Nytrøen.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eiring, Ø., Nylenna, M. & Nytrøen, K. Patient-Important Outcomes in the Long-Term Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: A Mixed-Methods Approach Investigating Relative Preferences and a Proposed Taxonomy. Patient 9, 91–102 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0128-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0128-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation