University Library
  • Login
A gateway to Melbourne's research publications
Minerva Access is the University's Institutional Repository. It aims to collect, preserve, and showcase the intellectual output of staff and students of the University of Melbourne for a global audience.
View Item 
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne School of Population and Global Health
  • Melbourne School of Population and Global Health - Research Publications
  • View Item
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne School of Population and Global Health
  • Melbourne School of Population and Global Health - Research Publications
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Involving Patients in Weighting Benefits and Harms of Treatment in Parkinson's Disease

    Thumbnail
    Download
    Published version (758.6Kb)

    Citations
    Scopus
    Web of Science
    Altmetric
    12
    11
    Author
    Weernink, MGM; van Til, JA; van Vugt, JPP; Movig, KLL; Groothuis-Oudshoorn, CGM; IJzerman, MJ
    Date
    2016-08-30
    Source Title
    PLoS One
    Publisher
    PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
    University of Melbourne Author/s
    IJzerman, Maarten
    Affiliation
    Melbourne School of Population and Global Health
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Document Type
    Journal Article
    Citations
    Weernink, M. G. M., van Til, J. A., van Vugt, J. P. P., Movig, K. L. L., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G. M. & IJzerman, M. J. (2016). Involving Patients in Weighting Benefits and Harms of Treatment in Parkinson's Disease. PLOS ONE, 11 (8), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160771.
    Access Status
    Open Access
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/11343/254953
    DOI
    10.1371/journal.pone.0160771
    Abstract
    INTRODUCTION: Little is known about how patients weigh benefits and harms of available treatments for Parkinson's Disease (oral medication, deep brain stimulation, infusion therapy). In this study we have (1) elicited patient preferences for benefits, side effects and process characteristics of treatments and (2) measured patients' preferred and perceived involvement in decision-making about treatment. METHODS: Preferences were elicited using a best-worst scaling case 2 experiment. Attributes were selected based on 18 patient-interviews: treatment modality, tremor, slowness of movement, posture and balance problems, drowsiness, dizziness, and dyskinesia. Subsequently, a questionnaire was distributed in which patients were asked to indicate the most and least desirable attribute in nine possible treatment scenarios. Conditional logistic analysis and latent class analysis were used to estimate preference weights and identify subgroups. Patients also indicated their preferred and perceived degree of involvement in treatment decision-making (ranging from active to collaborative to passive). RESULTS: Two preference patterns were found in the patient sample (N = 192). One class of patients focused largely on optimising the process of care, while the other class focused more on controlling motor-symptoms. Patients who had experienced advanced treatments, had a shorter disease duration, or were still employed were more likely to belong to the latter class. For both classes, the benefits of treatment were more influential than the described side effects. Furthermore, many patients (45%) preferred to take the lead in treatment decisions, however 10.8% perceived a more passive or collaborative role instead. DISCUSSION: Patients weighted the benefits and side effects of treatment differently, indicating there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach to choosing treatments. Moreover, many patients preferred an active role in decision-making about treatment. Both results stress the need for physicians to know what is important to patients and to share treatment decisions to ensure that patients receive the treatment that aligns with their preferences.

    Export Reference in RIS Format     

    Endnote

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format" and choose "open with... Endnote".

    Refworks

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format". Login to Refworks, go to References => Import References


    Collections
    • Minerva Elements Records [45770]
    • Melbourne School of Population and Global Health - Research Publications [4369]
    Minerva AccessDepositing Your Work (for University of Melbourne Staff and Students)NewsFAQs

    BrowseCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    My AccountLoginRegister
    StatisticsMost Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors