Patient Value Mapping

Incorporating patient values into health outcomes is known as Patient Value Mapping (PVM). CaPPRe are experts in PVM and work closely with industry, academia and government to encourage patient involvement in healthcare decision making.

CaPPRe provides pharmaceutical and medical device companies with professional guidance on tailored research solutions to assist with market access and reimbursement strategies in both local and global markets. This includes a broad mix of research offerings including patient value mapping (PVM), patient experience journeys, patient and clinician preference studies and payer willingness to pay (WTP) studies. CaPPRe is committed to helping support better access to treatments by understanding what is valued by patients, clinicians, payers and policy makers in a rapidly transforming landscape.

Our healthcare team brings a world of multidisciplinary and therapeutic area experience to its healthcare projects. We work across all disease areas. Some of our recent studies have been in the following areas:

Healthcare clients CaPPRe have worked with:

                     

                              

 

Patient advocacy groups/Non-profit organisations we have partnered with:

                 

            

 

Countries we have conducted research in:

Case Studies

Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) Patient and Carer Value Mapping

Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) is a type of cancer that affects the blood and bone marrow. CaPPRe conducted a treatment preferences study in people with ALL and carers. A summary of the findings is available here

 

Myeloma UK Patient Value Mapping 

Myeloma is a complex and debilitating haematological cancer. It is the 17th most common cancer in the UK, accounting for two percent of all new cases (Cancer Research UK, 2013). Recent years have seen improvements in survival as a result of routine use of high- dose therapy, autologous stem cell transplant and the introduction of novel therapies (Osborne et al 2012). Today, one third (33%) of people diagnosed with myeloma in England and Wales survive for ten years or more (Cancer Research UK, 2013).

Although myeloma is sensitive to treatments, there is currently no cure. Current treatments are prolonging remission and improving quality of life for myeloma patients. However, such treatments produce both physiological and psychological side-effects. As such patients are faced with a difficult trade-off of survival and remission rates against side-effects when choosing between treatment options.

The aim of this project was thus to enhance the evidence base around myeloma patient preferences and understand the treatment attributes valued by patients. In particular, what attributes of a treatment (for example side effects) are important to patients and how important is each attribute in the treatment of a patients’ condition.

We presented the research findings at the 22nd Congress of the European Hematology Association in Madrid. For more information, see the conference poster here

 

References

Cancer Research UK (2013) Myeloma Statistics. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/st... (Last accessed: June 2017)

Osborne, T. R., Ramsenthaler, C., Siegert, R. J., Edmonds, P. M., Schey, S. A. and Higginson, I. J. (2012), What issues matter most to people with multiple myeloma and how well are we measuring them? A systematic review of quality of life tools. Eur J Haematol, 89: 437–457. doi:10.1111/ejh.12012

 

Multiple Myeloma Treatment Preference Study

Incorporating patient values into health outcomes is known as Patient Value Mapping (PVM). CaPPRe are experts in PVM utilising discrete choice experiments (DCEs) and work closely with industry, academia and government to encourage patient involvement in healthcare decision making. 

In addition to our work in PVM CaPPRe conduct a number of research projects involving other stakeholders in the treatment decision process, including carers and healthcare professionals. One such study was conducted during 2016-17 regarding treatment preferences for Multiple Myeloma (MM) involving patients, carers, physicians and nurses completing an online survey including a DCE component.

At present, MM can be treated with several classes of treatments including immunomodulators, proteasome inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies and others [1, 2]. These treatments differ with respect to clinical outcomes such as the average length of survival and side effects, as well as non-clinical aspects such as the mode and frequency of administration and whether it is used as a therapy on its own or in combination with other therapies. Patients, carers, physicians and nurses may have different preferences for treatments based on these treatment characteristics.

Given the interaction and involvement of the care team with the patient, this study quantified treatment preferences and the alignment of treatment preferences for MM patients and the care team (carers, physicians and nurses).  Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were used to empirically quantify preferences for treatment. DCEs are increasingly used to quantify patient and other stakeholder preferences for treatments in a broad range of diseases [3-5]and allow for an understanding of the underlying characteristics, or attributes, of treatment that influence patient preferences. This was the first study to examine treatment preference alignment between MM patients and the carers, physicians and nurses involved in their care and is clinically important in the care and management of patients diagnosed with MM.

With the support of Myeloma Australia, this study was jointly sponsored by multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers who are interested in treatment preferences of MM patients. Results will be published in 2018. See our infographic for a summary of the study. 

References

1.         Hari P: Recent advances in understanding multiple myeloma. Hematology/Oncology and Stem Cell Therapy 2017.

2.         Naymagon L, Abdul-Hay M: Novel agents in the treatment of multiple myeloma: a review about the future. Journal of Hematology & Oncology 2016, 9:52.

3.         Marshall D, Bridges JF, Hauber B, Cameron R, Donnalley L, Fyie K, Johnson FR: Conjoint analysis applications in health - how are studies being designed and reported? The Patient 2010, 3(4):249-256.

4.         Bridges JFP, Kinter ET, Kidane L, Heinzen RR, McCormick C: Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 2008, 1(4):273-282.

5.         Lancsar E, Louviere J: Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making. PharmacoEconomics 2008, 26(8):661-677.