Search

Weibo Zhang,1,2,* Siyuan He,1,* Liam Wilson,3 Astrid Foix-Colonier,4 Maud Pacou,4 Youwei Zhu,1 Yi Zhu,1 Lili Xue,1 Yanfeng Wang,1 Junmei Li,1 Yanli Liu,1 Jun Cai1,2 1Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 2Mental Health Branch, China Hospital Development Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 3Amaris Consulting, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 4Amaris Consulting, Paris, France*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Jun Cai, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 600 Wan Ping Nan Road, Shanghai, 200030, People’s Republic of China, Email caijun533@163.comPurpose: This study aimed to quantify the preferences of Chinese patients with schizophrenia and their caregivers for antipsychotic treatment.Patients and Methods: Patients with schizophrenia (aged 18– 35) and their caregivers were recruited via six outpatient mental health clinics in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. In a discrete choice experiment (DCE), participants chose between two hypothetical treatment scenarios that varied regarding the type of treatment, rate of hospitalization, severity of positive symptoms, treatment cost and rates of improvement in daily and social functioning. Data for each group were analyzed using the modelling approach that yielded the lower deviance information criterion. The relative importance score (RIS) for each treatment attribute was also determined.Results: A total of 162 patients and 167 caregivers participated. Frequency of hospital admission was the most important treatment attribute for patients (average scaled RIS=27%), followed by mode and frequency of treatment administration (24%). Improvement in ability to carry out daily activities (8%) and improvement in social functioning (8%) were least important. Patients in full-time employment placed

Harpreet Singh,1 Liam Wilson,2 Tom Tencer,3 Jinender Kumar3 1Health Economics & Market Access (HEMA), Amaris Consulting Ltd, Toronto, ON, Canada; 2Health Economics & Market Access (HEMA), Amaris Consulting Ltd, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 3Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USACorrespondence: Jinender Kumar, Global HEOR, Bristol Myers Squibb, 100 Nassau Park Blvd #300, Princeton, NJ, 08540, USA, Tel +1-609-302-7630, Email Jinender.Kumar@bms.comBackground: Currently approved biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis have well-established efficacy. However, many patients fail to respond or lose response, leading to dose escalation or treatment switching.Objective: We sought to identify real-world evidence on dose escalation and treatment switching and associated clinical and economic outcomes among adults with ulcerative colitis treated with infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, or tofacitinib.Methods: We conducted a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE (up to 26 August 2020), and conference proceedings (2017− 2020) for studies in adults with ulcerative colitis to assess clinical response and remission, colectomy, adverse events, and economic outcomes related to dose escalation and treatment switching.Results: In 56 studies, dose escalation and treatment switching involving infliximab and/or adalimumab were most frequently investigated. Rates of clinical response after dose escalation were 20– 95% (1.8– 36 months), clinical remission rates were 10– 94% (1.8– 36 months), colectomy rates were 0– 33% (12– 38 months), and adverse event rates were 0– 18%. Treatment switching rates in 21 studies were 4– 70% over 3– 62 months, with switch due to loss of response rates of 4– 35% over 12– 62 months (7 studies). Up to 35% of patients underwent colectomy 12− 120 weeks after switching, and 13– 38% experienced adverse events. Data relating to economic outcomes were limited to tumor

The work presented in this thesis aims to design, develop and investigate the effectiveness of a Virtual Reality (VR) tool for conducting research in gambling behaviour. The majority of existing gambling studies are conducted in laboratories, rather than in vivo, raising questions over the generalisability of results [1]. VR is well established as an effective tool for exposure therapy, often motivated by an ability to create ecologically valid conditions whilst retaining experimental control, which is difficult to do in vivo. Whilst VR has also been used in some gambling studies, no work has considered how VR environments should be designed to best create ecological validity, and the differences in experience between laboratory and VR conditions. This thesis presents the process of designing and developing a VR tool, featuring a gambling task and VR environment to create an experience of gambling in a betting shop. A prototype artefact was tested within a pilot study to identify and fix bugs prior to starting user studies. Approached from the perspective of immersion, arousal and user experience; a within-subjects study (N = 48) was conducted. During this, participants were tasked with playing through the gambling task on a touch-screen tablet in a laboratory, before repeating the same task on a Virtual Gambling Machine (VGM) within the VR simulation of a betting shop. Subjective measures were applied to measure immersion, emotional involvement and workload. The results of user studies show that participants reported higher levels of arousal, in addition to higher levels of immersion in the gambling game when playing in VR. There was also a significant difference in self-reported physical task load in VR. These findings suggest that VR offers high levels of immersion which enable a user to better engage and focus on a research task, without a negative impact upon cognitive workload due to the VR equipment. Increased levels of arousal in the VR condition also mirror