Activities and Accomplishments (2007):

• ISPOR CONNECTIONS Article (December 2007)
  Patient Preference Methods – A Patient Centered Evaluation Paradigm
  
  Patient Preference Methods - A Patient Centered Evaluation Paradigm Article (PDF Format) »
  
  Authors: John F P Bridges PhD, Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; Ebere Onukwugha PhD, Assistant Professor, University of Maryland, School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA; F. Reed Johnson PhD, Senior Fellow, RTI Health Solutions, RTP, NC, USA;  A. Brett Hauber PhD, Senior Economist, RTI Health Solutions, RTP, NC, USA

• Summary:

  • The increased focus on patient reported outcomes (PROs) has heightened the awareness of the patient’s perspective of health outcomes. 
  • We also need to rethink some of the foundations of our research methods in order to better understand the patient’s point of view. 
  • An alternative class of methods exists that are rooted in economic theory known as patient preference methods that have been somewhat neglected in health care. 
  • While patient preference methods are related to PROs, health related quality of life they are also a distinct class of methods that are increasingly being applied in medicine. 
  • Our paper highlights why patient preference methods constitute a more patient-centered, theory-based, and flexible group of methods than the current status quo. 

  Acknowledgements
  Published on behalf of ISPOR’s Patient Reported Outcomes Special Interest Group, Patient Preference Methods Working Group.  The authors acknowledge the input of past and present members of the working group.  For further information on the activities and output of the group, please visit our webpage: http://www.ispor.org/sigs/PRO_PPMl.asp

• ISPOR 12th Annual International Meeting: Workshops May 23, 2007
  W8: Patient Preferences and Patient Reported Outcomes:
  Is There a Difference?
  
  Discussion Leaders: John FP Bridges PhD Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; Elizabeth Timberlake Kinter, MHS, PhD Student, Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
  
  Workshop Purpose: To demonstrate the similarities and differences between ‘patient-reported outcomes’ (PROs) and ‘patient preferences’, two concepts which have recently drawn increased attention in outcomes research. To highlight the relative strengths and weaknesses of incorporating these concepts into health technology assessment (HTA) and outcomes research and to emphasize how both strive to make the focus of outcomes research more representative of the treatment than arbitrarily selected clinical outcomes.
  Workshop Description: Patient reported outcomes (PROs) describe a range of tools for incorporating a patient response, without interpretation by physician, which can be used to measure issues of quality of life (QOL), satisfaction, and nominally any aspect of care that a patient may draw benefits or costs from, in order to deliver a HTA. Similarly, patient preferences refers to the integration of patient views and experiences into an HTA, relating to a limited set of methods that require the patient to make trade-offs between specific treatment characteristics and is founded in the economic theories of decision making. Although PROs and patient preferences are an improvement over traditional “intermediate endpoints” and QOL instruments, which are narrowly focused, symptom specific, and aim to quantify clinically important symptoms or outcomes that can be difficult for a patient to relate to, they are notsynonymous methodologies. Workshop participants will become familiar with the similarities and differences between PROs and patient preferences techniques. A short presentation will be delivered to introduce the concepts. The remainder of the presentation will be interactive, offering an opportunity for a range of perspectives to be discussed and for adequate discussion about the practical implications of the materials presented. The session will be of interest and informative for applied outcomes researchers, physicians, patients and payers (both governmental and from private insurers).