Focus Group Evaluation of Criteria for the Value Assessment of Medication-Adherence Enhancing Interventions (MAEIs)
Author(s)
Dweeti Nayak, MS1, Tamas Agh, MSc, PhD, MD2, Elizabeth Unni, MBA, PhD3, Adina Turcu-Stiolica, PhD4, Bijan J. Borah, MSc, PhD5, Priti Pednekar, PhD6, Joel Issac, BS7, Connor Dugan, BS8, Christopher Cha, BS8, Andrew M. Peterson, PharmD, PhD9.
1Research Scientist, Precision Medicine Group, Jersey City, NJ, USA, 2University of Pecs & Syreon Research Institute, Budapest, PE, Hungary, 3Touro College of Pharmacy, New York, NY, USA, 4University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Craiova, Romania, 5Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA, 6Astellas Pharma Inc, Newark, CA, USA, 7Saint Joseph's Univeristy, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 8Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 9Saint Joseph's Univesity, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
1Research Scientist, Precision Medicine Group, Jersey City, NJ, USA, 2University of Pecs & Syreon Research Institute, Budapest, PE, Hungary, 3Touro College of Pharmacy, New York, NY, USA, 4University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, Craiova, Romania, 5Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA, 6Astellas Pharma Inc, Newark, CA, USA, 7Saint Joseph's Univeristy, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 8Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 9Saint Joseph's Univesity, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Medication Adherence Enhancing Interventions (MAEIs), such as patient counseling, and home telemonitoring have demonstrated potential to improve adherence outcomes. However, the existing evidence on their effectiveness is of low quality. This study aimed to identify key criteria for evaluating the value of MAEIs.
METHODS: Five focus groups were conducted to identify and critically assess important criteria for the value assessment of MAEIs. Participants included academics, patients, payers, pharmaceutical professionals, and healthcare practitioners (HCPs). They were asked to review a list of criteria identified from a previously conducted systematic literature review (SLR), evaluate these criteria, propose additional criteria, and rank the 10 most important criteria from their respective perspectives.
RESULTS: A total of 21 participants were recruited, including 4 academics, 4 patients, 4 payers, 4 pharmaceutical professionals, and 5 HCPs. Participants reviewed 67 criteria from the SLR and added 12 new criteria. The newly identified criteria primarily focused on patient-reported outcomes, such as patient preference, acceptance of interventions/regimens, and economic factors, including patient time involvement, time to intervention, staff and provider time, and insurance type (private vs. public). Of the 79 total criteria, "Safety/Adverse Events", "Disease Control", “Cost-Effectiveness”, and “Health Literacy” were ranked in the top 10 by all participants. Ranking congruence varied across the five groups; for example, "Direct Medical Cost," ranked in the top 10 by 43% of all participants but was not ranked at all by academics. Similarly, "Cost-effectiveness" and "Health Literacy," both ranked in the top 10 by 38.1%, but were also not ranked by academics.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that while numerous outcomes can be measured to assess the effectiveness of MAEIs, "Safety/Adverse Events", "Disease Control", “Cost-Effectiveness” and “Health Literacy” were consistently prioritized by all stakeholders. These findings emphasize the need for a comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approach to evaluating the value of MAEIs.
METHODS: Five focus groups were conducted to identify and critically assess important criteria for the value assessment of MAEIs. Participants included academics, patients, payers, pharmaceutical professionals, and healthcare practitioners (HCPs). They were asked to review a list of criteria identified from a previously conducted systematic literature review (SLR), evaluate these criteria, propose additional criteria, and rank the 10 most important criteria from their respective perspectives.
RESULTS: A total of 21 participants were recruited, including 4 academics, 4 patients, 4 payers, 4 pharmaceutical professionals, and 5 HCPs. Participants reviewed 67 criteria from the SLR and added 12 new criteria. The newly identified criteria primarily focused on patient-reported outcomes, such as patient preference, acceptance of interventions/regimens, and economic factors, including patient time involvement, time to intervention, staff and provider time, and insurance type (private vs. public). Of the 79 total criteria, "Safety/Adverse Events", "Disease Control", “Cost-Effectiveness”, and “Health Literacy” were ranked in the top 10 by all participants. Ranking congruence varied across the five groups; for example, "Direct Medical Cost," ranked in the top 10 by 43% of all participants but was not ranked at all by academics. Similarly, "Cost-effectiveness" and "Health Literacy," both ranked in the top 10 by 38.1%, but were also not ranked by academics.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that while numerous outcomes can be measured to assess the effectiveness of MAEIs, "Safety/Adverse Events", "Disease Control", “Cost-Effectiveness” and “Health Literacy” were consistently prioritized by all stakeholders. These findings emphasize the need for a comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approach to evaluating the value of MAEIs.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
HTA86
Topic
Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Value Frameworks & Dossier Format
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas