Understanding Patient Priorities in Psoriasis Treatment: A Review of Key Decision-Making Drivers
Author(s)
Anna López Ferrer, MD, PhD1, Isabel Belinchón, MD, PhD2, Marta Comellas Serra, PharmD3, Lorena Esteban Martínez, PhD3, Alberto Romero Mate, MD4, Beatriz Pérez Suárez, MD5, Sergio Santos Alarcón, MD6, Pablo de la Cueva, MD, PhD7.
1Department of Dermatology, Hospital Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain, 2Department of Clinical Medicine, Dr. Balmis General University Hospital, Alicante, Spain, 3Outcomes'10 (a Productlife Group company), Castellón de la Plana, Spain, 4Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain, 5Department of Dermatology, Hospital Morales Meseguer, Murcia, Spain, 6Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario Doctor Peset, Valencia, Spain, 7Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain.
1Department of Dermatology, Hospital Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain, 2Department of Clinical Medicine, Dr. Balmis General University Hospital, Alicante, Spain, 3Outcomes'10 (a Productlife Group company), Castellón de la Plana, Spain, 4Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain, 5Department of Dermatology, Hospital Morales Meseguer, Murcia, Spain, 6Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario Doctor Peset, Valencia, Spain, 7Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain.
OBJECTIVES: Understanding the factors that influence patient treatment choices is essential for supporting shared decision-making in clinical practice. This review aims to examine the literature on patient preferences regarding treatment attributes for psoriasis, with the goal of identifying key drivers that impact decision-making.
METHODS: A structured literature review was performed in Pubmed to identify studies addressing treatment decision-making and patient preferences in psoriasis.
RESULTS: A total of 25 publications were included, comprising 6 qualitative interview-based studies, 9 discrete choice experiments (DCE), 2 systematic reviews of DCEs, and other designs (8). Most studies focused on patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis (15), while the remaining 10 addressed the general psoriasis population without specifying disease severity. Five main decision-making drivers were identified: efficacy, convenience, safety, quality of life, and cost. Efficacy was the most frequently reported driver, present in 35.7% of references (55 mentions), with key attributes including sustainability of treatment success and duration of symptom relief (both cited in 44% of studies). Convenience appeared in 30.5% of cases (47 mentions), with treatment frequency (52%) and route of administration (44%) as the most common attributes. Safety was mentioned in 18.8% of references (29 mentions), particularly side effects (64%). Quality of life (8.4%) and treatment cost (6.5%) were less frequently addressed.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients’ treatment decisions are shaped by a combination of efficacy, convenience, and safety. This review highlights the importance of not only achieving clinical improvement but also maintaining it over time and addressing both physical and emotional symptoms. While efficacy and convenience are most valued, concerns about adverse effects and, to a lesser extent, quality of life and treatment costs also influence preferences. Incorporating these factors into shared decision-making tools is essential to align treatments with patients’ values and everyday realities.
METHODS: A structured literature review was performed in Pubmed to identify studies addressing treatment decision-making and patient preferences in psoriasis.
RESULTS: A total of 25 publications were included, comprising 6 qualitative interview-based studies, 9 discrete choice experiments (DCE), 2 systematic reviews of DCEs, and other designs (8). Most studies focused on patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis (15), while the remaining 10 addressed the general psoriasis population without specifying disease severity. Five main decision-making drivers were identified: efficacy, convenience, safety, quality of life, and cost. Efficacy was the most frequently reported driver, present in 35.7% of references (55 mentions), with key attributes including sustainability of treatment success and duration of symptom relief (both cited in 44% of studies). Convenience appeared in 30.5% of cases (47 mentions), with treatment frequency (52%) and route of administration (44%) as the most common attributes. Safety was mentioned in 18.8% of references (29 mentions), particularly side effects (64%). Quality of life (8.4%) and treatment cost (6.5%) were less frequently addressed.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients’ treatment decisions are shaped by a combination of efficacy, convenience, and safety. This review highlights the importance of not only achieving clinical improvement but also maintaining it over time and addressing both physical and emotional symptoms. While efficacy and convenience are most valued, concerns about adverse effects and, to a lesser extent, quality of life and treatment costs also influence preferences. Incorporating these factors into shared decision-making tools is essential to align treatments with patients’ values and everyday realities.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
PCR253
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Disease
Systemic Disorders/Conditions (Anesthesia, Auto-Immune Disorders (n.e.c.), Hematological Disorders (non-oncologic), Pain)