Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review

Differences in Preferences for Drug Therapy Between Patients with Metastatic Versus Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Compared with early stages (eBC) metastatic BC (mBC) is incurable. In mBC, aggressive treatment may increase the duration of survival but may also cause severe treatment side effects. A better understanding how patients with BC value different aspects of drug therapy might improve treatment effectiveness, satisfaction and adherence. This systematic review aims to identify and summarise studies evaluating patient preferences for drug therapy of BC and to compare preferences of patients with eBC and mBC.

METHODS

The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The electronic databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched on 22 June 2023. All studies published to this point were considered. Original studies reporting patient preferences on BC drug therapy determined by any type of choice experiment were eligible. A narrative synthesis of the effect measures presented as relative importance ratings, trade-offs (required benefit to make a therapy worthwhile) or monetary values of the treatment attributes was reported for each study. Risk of bias assessment for individual studies was performed using the checklist for observational studies from the STROBE Statement and the checklist from 'Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making: A User's Guide'. The study protocol was registered at the PROSPERO database (CRD42022377031).

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis evaluating the preferences of patients with eBC (n = 18), mBC (n = 10) or any stage BC (n = 6) on, for example, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, hormonal therapy or CKD4/6-inhibitors using different types of choice experiments. Regardless of the stage, most patients valued treatment effectiveness in terms of survival gains higher than potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Treatment cost, mode of administration, treatment regimen and monitoring aspects were considered as least important treatment attributes. In addition, preferences concerning 16 different types of ADRs were described, showing high heterogeneity within BC stages. Yet, comparable results across BC stages were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of the stage, patients with BC consistently valued survival gains as the most important attribute and were willing to accept the risk of potential ADRs. Incorporating patient preferences in shared decision making may improve the effectiveness of interventions by enhancing adherence to drug therapy in patients suffering from BC.

Preferences of people with diabetes for diabetes care in Germany: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to elicit health care preferences of people with diabetes and identify classes of people with different preferences.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted among people with diabetes in Germany comprising attributes of role division in daily diabetes care planning, type of lifestyle education, support for correct medication intake, consultation frequency, emotional support, and time spent on self-management. A conditional logit model and a latent class model were used to elicit preferences toward diabetes care and analyze preference heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 76 people with diabetes, recruited in two specialized diabetes care centers in Germany (mean age 51.9 years, 37.3% women, 49.1% type 2 diabetes mellitus, 50.9% type 1 diabetes mellitus), completed the discrete choice experiment. The most important attributes were consultation frequency, division in daily diabetes care planning, and correct medication intake. The latent class model detected preference heterogeneity by identifying two latent classes which differ mainly with respect to lifestyle education and medication intake.

CONCLUSION

While the majority of people with diabetes showed preferences in line with current health care provision in Germany, a relevant subgroup wished to strengthen lifestyle education and medication intake support with an aid or website.

Systematic review study protocol of literature from 2018 to end of 2022 of stated preference studies about HIV care and prevention services around the world

BACKGROUND

There are currently over 38 million individuals around the globe living with the HIV and AIDS. As many HIV prevention and care services emerging for public use services become available to a wider audience, there is a growing need for more information about willingness to engage in these care and services. Stated preference research methods have been shown to be useful methods to help predict factors that influence health behaviours in the future.

RESEARCH QUESTION

This is a systematic review of findings from stated preference studies regarding the choices of people living with HIV or people at risk of contracting HIV to engage in HIV prevention or care.

METHODS

Our team plans to compile stated preference studies studying the choice to engage in HIV prevention or care services. Studies will be included from 1 January 2018 until 28 October 2022. There will be no restrictions on the language or location of the study. We will search databases including PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, Tufts CEA registry and CINAHL. Two researchers will review each article's title, abstract, then full-text and finally extract relevant data based on a predetermined process. Data will be presented in a narrative review and in an exploratory meta-analysis by subgroups of studies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION OF RESEARCH

There is no need for an ethical review process of this study since all data used is available publicly. The findings of this study will be reported in relevant conferences and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023397785.

Person-reported outcomes in diabetes care: What are they and why are they so important?

In this review, we aim to show how person-reported outcomes (PROs) and person-reported experiences (PREs) can significantly contribute to the way diabetes care is delivered, the involvement of people with diabetes in diabetes care, and the collaboration between health care professionals and people with diabetes. This review focuses on the definition and measurement of PROs and PREs, the importance of PROs and PREs for person-centred diabetes care, and integrating the perspectives of people with diabetes in the evaluation of medical, psychological and technological interventions. PROs have been increasingly accepted by Health Technology Assessment bodies and are therefore valued in the context of reimbursement decisions and consequently by regulators and other health care stakeholders for the allocation of health care resources. Furthermore, the review identified current challenges to the assessment and use of PROs and PREs in clinical care and research. These challenges relate to the combination of questionnaires and ecological momentary assessment for measuring PROs and PREs, lack of consensus on a core outcome set, limited sensitivity to change within many measures and insufficient standardization of what can be considered a minimal clinically important difference. Another issue that has not been sufficiently addressed is the involvement of people with diabetes in the design and development of measures to assess PROs and PREs.

The Impact of Menthol Cigarette Bans: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This review investigates the impacts of banning the sale of menthol cigarettes at stores.

METHODS

A systematic search of studies published in English up to November 2022 was conducted. The following databases were searched: PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Embase, as well as a non-indexed journal. Studies evaluating either the impact of real-world or hypothesized menthol cigarette bans were included. Primary outcomes include tobacco use behaviors. Secondary outcomes include cigarette sales, retailer compliance, and the tobacco industry's response to a menthol ban. Data on tobacco use behavior after a menthol ban were pooled using random-effects models. Two pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality.

RESULTS

Of the 964 articles that were identified during the initial search, 78 were included in the review and 16 were included in the meta-analysis. Cessation rates among menthol cigarette smokers were high after a menthol ban. Pooled results show that 24% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 20%, 28%) of menthol cigarette smokers quit smoking after a menthol ban, 50% (95% CI: 31%, 68%) switched to non-menthol cigarettes, 12% (95% CI: 3%, 20%) switched to other flavored tobacco products, and 24% (95% CI: 17%, 31%) continued smoking menthol cigarettes. Hypothesized quitting and switching rates were fairly close to real-world rates. Studies found the tobacco industry attempts to undermine menthol bans. National menthol bans appear more effective than local or state menthol bans.

CONCLUSIONS

Menthol cigarette bans promote smoking cessation suggesting their potential to improve public health.

IMPLICATIONS

Findings from this review suggest that menthol cigarette bans promote smoking cessation among menthol cigarette smokers and have the potential to improve public health.

Patient Preferences in Diagnostic Imaging: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

As new diagnostic imaging technologies are adopted, decisions surrounding diagnostic imaging become increasingly complex. As such, understanding patient preferences in imaging decision making is imperative.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to review quantitative patient preference studies in imaging-related decision making, including characteristics of the literature and the quality of the evidence.

METHODS

The Pubmed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify studies involving diagnostic imaging and quantitative patient preference measures from January 2000 to June 2022. Study characteristics that were extracted included the preference elicitation method, disease focus, and sample size. We employed the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) checklist as our quality assessment tool.

RESULTS

A total of 54 articles were included. The following methods were used to elicit preferences: conjoint analysis/discrete choice experiment methods (n = 27), contingent valuation (n = 16), time trade-off (n = 4), best-worst scaling (n = 3), multicriteria decision analysis (n = 3), and a standard gamble approach (n = 1). Half of the studies were published after 2016 (52%, 28/54). The most common scenario (n = 39) for eliciting patient preferences was cancer screening. Computed tomography, the most frequently studied imaging modality, was included in 20 studies, and sample sizes ranged from 30 to 3469 participants (mean 552). The mean PREFS score was 3.5 (standard deviation 0.8) for the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights that a variety of quantitative preference methods are being used, as diagnostic imaging technologies continue to evolve. While the number of preference studies in diagnostic imaging has increased with time, most examine preventative care/screening, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding imaging for disease characterization and management.

Eliciting preferences in glaucoma management-a systematic review of stated-preference studies

BACKGROUND

In most cases, glaucoma patients require long-term medical and/or surgical treatment. Preference studies investigate how different aspects of glaucoma management, such as health or process outcomes, are valued and herewith help stakeholders make care more responsive to patients' needs. As, to our knowledge, no overview of these studies is currently available, this study aims to systematically review and critically appraise these studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using keywords for stated-preference studies and glaucoma up to October 2021. Studies were included if they were original research and used a stated-preference methodology to investigate preferences in patients or healthcare professionals for different aspects of glaucoma management. Data were extracted and summarized. Furthermore, a quality appraisal of the included studies was performed using two validated checklists.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1214 articles after removal of duplicates. Of those, 11 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Studies aimed to elicit preferences for glaucoma treatment (27%), glaucoma related health state valuation (36%), and services (36%) from the patient (91%) or ophthalmologists' perspective (9%). Altogether studies included 69 attributes. The majority of attributes were outcome related (62%), followed by process (32%) and cost attributes (6%). Outcome attributes (e.g., effectiveness) were most often of highest importance to the population.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides an up-to-date and critical review of stated-preference studies in the field of glaucoma, suggesting that patients have preferences and are willing to trade-off between characteristics, and revealed that outcome attributes are the most influential characteristics of glaucoma management.

A Discrete Choice Experiment to Assess Patient Preferences for Asthma Rescue Therapy and Disease Management

BACKGROUND

With the expanding treatment landscape for asthma, the process of identifying best-fit, individualized management options is becoming increasingly complicated. Understanding patients' preferences can inform shared decision-making between clinicians and patients.

OBJECTIVES

To examine preferences of adults with asthma for therapeutic and management attributes and determine how these preferences vary among patients.

METHODS

We conducted an online discrete choice experiment survey in US adults with asthma. Patient preferences were analyzed using logit models. Factors affecting patients' preferences were identified by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1,184 patients completed the survey (60% female; mean [SD] age, 49.2 [15.0] years). Patients most valued fewer asthma attacks requiring urgent health care professional visits, fewer exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids, and a reduced risk for oral thrush. Higher value was placed on reducing the risk of short-term (oral thrush) versus long-term side effects (diabetes). Patients were willing to increase rescue medication use in exchange for decreasing exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and attacks requiring urgent health care professional visits. Patients preferred a single inhaler for rescue and maintenance and least valued asthma action plans. Demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors affected patient preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients sought convenient management options that focused mainly on decreasing the short-term morbidity associated with asthma exacerbations and therapies. Preferences varied by demographics, clinical factors, and socioeconomics. It is important for shared decision-making discussions to include conversations about morbidity and how available therapeutic options align with individual patient preferences.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Liver and Gastrointestinal Cancer Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

For many years, outcomes such as mortality and morbidity were the standard for evaluating oncological treatment effectiveness. With the introduction of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the focus shifted from a mere extension of a patient's life or release from disease to the improvement of a multilayered concept of health, decisively affecting life satisfaction. In this study, we deal with the topic of PROMs in liver and gastrointestinal randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

The final database included 43 papers reporting results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for liver or gastrointestinal cancer interventions where one of the primary or secondary outcomes was a health-related quality of life measure. The most often used PROM was the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) for both liver cancer and gastrointestinal cancer (in 62% of gastrointestinal cancer studies and 57% of liver cancer studies). For the gastrointestinal cancer group, the QLQ-STO22, a cancer-specific extension of the QLQ-C30, was the second most commonly used PROM. In liver cancer, the generic PROM Short Form 36 and the EORTC QLQ-HCC18, a cancer-specific extension of the QLQ-C30, were the second most commonly used PROMs.

CONCLUSION

We found that RCTs often do not include comprehensive quality-of-life measures. When quality of life is part of an RCT, it is often only a secondary outcome. For a holistic view of the patient, a stronger integration and weighting of patient-reported outcomes in RCTs would be desirable.

Health Economics Research on Non-surgical Biomedical HIV Prevention: Identifying Gaps and Proposing a Way Forward

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Although HIV prevention science has advanced over the last four decades, evidence suggests that prevention technologies do not always reach their full potential. Critical health economics evidence at appropriate decision-making junctures, particularly early in the development process, could help identify and address potential barriers to the eventual uptake of future HIV prevention products. This paper aims to identify key evidence gaps and propose health economics research priorities for the field of HIV non-surgical biomedical prevention.

METHODS

We used a mixed-methods approach with three distinct components: (i) three systematic literature reviews (costs and cost effectiveness, HIV transmission modelling and quantitative preference elicitation) to understand health economics evidence and gaps in the peer-reviewed literature; (ii) an online survey with researchers working in this field to capture gaps in yet-to-be published research (recently completed, ongoing and future); and (iii) a stakeholder meeting with key global and national players in HIV prevention, including experts in product development, health economics research and policy uptake, to uncover further gaps, as well as to elicit views on priorities and recommendations based on (i) and (ii).

RESULTS

Gaps in the scope of available health economics evidence were identified. Little research has been carried out on certain key populations (e.g. transgender people and people who inject drugs) and other vulnerable groups (e.g. pregnant people and people who breastfeed). Research is also lacking on preferences of community actors who often influence or enable access to health services among priority populations. Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis, which has been rolled out in many settings, has been studied in depth. However, research on newer promising technologies, such as long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis formulations, broadly neutralising antibodies and multipurpose prevention technologies, is lacking. Interventions focussing on reducing intravenous and vertical transmission are also understudied. A disproportionate amount of evidence on low- and middle-income countries comes from two countries (South Africa and Kenya); evidence from other countries in sub-Saharan Africa as well as other low- and middle-income countries is needed. Further, data are needed on non-facility-based service delivery modalities, integrated service delivery and ancillary services. Key methodological gaps were also identified. An emphasis on equity and representation of heterogeneous populations was lacking. Research rarely acknowledged the complex and dynamic use of prevention technologies over time. Greater efforts are needed to collect primary data, quantify uncertainty, systematically compare the full range of prevention options available, and validate pilot and modelling data once interventions are scaled up. Clarity on appropriate cost-effectiveness outcome measures and thresholds is also lacking. Lastly, research often fails to reflect policy-relevant questions and approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a large body of health economics evidence on non-surgical biomedical HIV prevention technologies, important gaps in the scope of evidence and methodology remain. To ensure that high-quality research influences key decision-making junctures and facilitates the delivery of prevention products in a way that maximises impact, we make five broad recommendations related to: improved study design, an increased focus on service delivery, greater community and stakeholder engagement, the fostering of an active network of partners across sectors and an enhanced application of research.

Patient preferences for epilepsy treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experimental studies

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to 1) identify and assess the quality of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) examining preferences related to epilepsy treatment; 2) summarize the attributes and attribute levels measured in these studies; 3) identify how researchers selected and developed these attributes; and 4) identify which attributes are most important for epilepsy patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature review using PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases from database inception to February or April 2022. We included primary discrete-choice experiments eliciting preferences for various attributes of pharmacological and surgical interventions in patients diagnosed with epilepsy or the parents/carers of children with epilepsy. We excluded non- primary studies, studies assessing preferences for nonpharmacological treatment and studies that elicit preferences using methods other than discrete choice experiments. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of studies. The quality of the included studies was assessed using two validated checklists. Study characteristics and findings were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies were included in the review. The majority of studies explored patients' preferences, and two compared the preferences of patients with physicians. The majority (n = 6) compared two medications, and one compared two surgical options to continuing medication options. The studies examined 44 attributes in total, including side effects (n = 26), efficacy expressed as being seizure free or have fewer seizures (n = 8), costs (n = 3), dosing frequency (n = 3), duration of side effects (n = 2), mortality (n = 1), long-term problems after surgery (n = 1) and surgical options (n = 1). The findings indicate that people with epilepsy have strong preferences for improving seizure control, which was ranked as the top priority in all studies. Patients also have a strong preference for the reduction of adverse effects and may be willing to make trade-offs between improved seizure control and reduction of long-term side effects that may impact their quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DCEs in measuring patients' preference for epilepsy treatment is accumulating. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details may reduce decision-makers' confidence in the findings. Suggestions for future research are provided.

Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

BACKGROUND

Targeted pharmacotherapy has been increasingly applied in cancer treatment due to its breakthroughs. However, the unmet needs of cancer patients are still significant, highlighting the urgency to investigate patient preferences. It is unclear how patients deliberate their choices between different aspects of targeted therapy, including cost, efficacy, and adverse events. Since discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been widely applied to patient preference elicitation, we reviewed DCEs on targeted therapy for different cancers. We also synthesized evidence on the factors influencing patients' choices and their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for survival when treated by targeted therapy.

METHODS

We searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE, up to August 16, 2022, supplemented by a reference screening. The attributes from the selected studies were categorized into three groups: outcomes, costs, and process. We also calculated the relative importance of attributes and WTP for survival whenever possible. The purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance (PREFS) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included DCE studies.

RESULTS

The review identified 34 eligible studies from 13 countries covering 14 cancers, such as breast, ovarian, kidney, prostate, and skin cancers. It also reveals a rising trend of DCEs on this topic, as most studies were published after 2018. We found that patients placed higher weights on the outcome (e.g., overall survival) and cost attributes than on process attributes. On average, patients were willing to pay $561 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $415-$758) and $716 (95% CI $524-$958) out-of-pocket for a 1-month increase in progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. PREFS scores of the 34 studies ranged from 2 to 4, with a mean of 3.38 (SD: 0.65), suggesting a reasonable quality based on the checklist. However, most studies (n = 32, 94%) did not assess the impact of non-responses on the results.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review focusing on patient preferences for targeted cancer therapy. We showcased novel approaches for evidence synthesis of DCE results, especially the attribute relative importance and WTP. The results may inform stakeholders about patient preferences toward targeted therapy and their WTP estimates. More studies with improved study design and quality are warranted to generate more robust evidence to assist decision making.

A systematic review to identify the use of stated preference research in the field of older adult care

In the design of long-term care systems, preferences can serve as an essential indication to better tailor services to the needs, wishes and expectations of its consumers. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and synthesize available evidence on long-term care preferences that have been elicited by quantitative stated-preference methods. The databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched for the period 2000 to 2020 with an extensive set of search terms. Two independent researchers judged the eligibility of studies. The final number of included studies was 66, conducted in 19 different countries. Studies were systematized according to their content focus as well as the survey method used. Irrespective of the heterogeneity of studies with respect to research focus, study population, sample size and study design, some consistent findings emerged. When presented with a set of long-term care options, the majority of study participants preferred to "age in place" and make use of informal or home-based care. With increasing severity of physical and cognitive impairments, preferences shifted toward the exclusive use of formal care. Next to the severity of care needs, the influence on preferences of a range of other independent variables such as income, family status and education were tested; however, none showed consistent effects across all studies. The inclusion of choice-based elicitation techniques provides an impression of how studies operationalized long-term care and measured preferences. Future research should investigate how preferences might change over time and generations as well as people's willingness and realistic capabilities of providing care.

Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are being increasingly conducted. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and describe the methodologies that have been used to summarize results across DCEs.

METHODS

We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 18, 2021, to identify English-language systematic reviews of patient preferences that included at least two DCEs and extracted data on attribute importance. The methods used to summarize results across DCEs were classified into narrative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative (meta-analytic) approaches and compared. Approaches to characterize the extent of preference heterogeneity were also described.

RESULTS

From 7362 unique records, we identified 54 eligible reviews from 2010 to Mar 2021, across a broad range of health conditions. Most (83%) used a narrative approach to summarize findings of DCEs, often citing differences in studies as the reason for not formally pooling findings. Semi-quantitative approaches included summarizing the frequency of the most important attributes, the frequency of attribute statistical significance, or tabulated comparisons of attribute importance for each pair of attributes. One review conducted a meta-analysis using the maximum acceptable risk. While reviews often commented on the heterogeneity of patient preferences, few (6%) addressed this systematically across studies.

CONCLUSION

While not commonly used, several semi-quantitative and one quantitative approach for synthesizing results of DCEs were identified, which may be useful for generating summary estimates across DCEs when appropriate. Further work is needed to assess the validity and usefulness of these approaches.

Best-Worst Scaling and the Prioritization of Objects in Health: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Best-worst scaling is a theory-driven method that can be used to prioritize objects in health. We sought to characterize all studies of best-worst scaling to prioritize objects in health, to assess trends of using best-worst scaling in prioritization over time, and to assess the relationship between a legacy measure of quality (PREFS) and a novel assessment of subjective quality and policy relevance.

METHODS

A systematic review identified studies published through to the end of 2021 that applied best-worst scaling to study priorities in health (PROSPERO CRD42020209745), updating a prior review published in 2016. The PubMed, EBSCOhost, Embase, Scopus, APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were used and were supplemented by a hand search. Data describing the application, development, design, administration/analysis, quality, and policy relevance were summarized and we tested for trends by comparing articles before and after 1 January, 2017. Multivariate statistics were then used to assess the relationships between PREFS, subjective quality, policy relevance, and other possible indicators.

RESULTS

From a total of 2826 unique papers identified, 165 best-worst scaling studies were included in this review. Applications of best-worst scaling to study priorities in health have continued to grow (p < 0.01) and are now used in all regions of the world, most often to study the priorities of patients/consumers (67%). Several key trends can be observed over time: increased use of pretesting (p < 0.05); increased use of online administration (p < 0.01), and decreased use of paper self-administered surveys (p = 0.02); increased use of heterogeneity analysis (p = 0.02); an increase in having a clearly stated purpose (p < 0.01); and a decrease in comparing respondents to non-respondents (p = 0.01). The average sample size has more than doubled, from 228 to 472 respondents, but formal sample size justifications remain low (5.3%) and unchanged over time (p = 0.68). While the average PREFS score remained unchanged at 3.1/5, both subjective quality and policy relevance trended up, but changes were not statistically significant (p = 0.06 and p = 0.13). Most of the variation in subjective quality was driven by PREFS (R2 = 0.42), but it was also positively assosciated with policy relevance, heterogeneity analysis, and using a balanced incomplete block design, and was negatively associated with not using developmental methods and an increasing sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Using best-worst scaling to prioritize objects is now commonly used around the world to assess the priorities of patients and other stakeholders in health. Best practices are clearly emerging for best-worst scaling. Although legacy measures (PREFS) to measure study quality are reasonable, there may need to be new tools to assess both study quality and policy relevance.

Patient-based benefit-risk assessment of medicines: development, refinement, and validation of a content search strategy to retrieve relevant studies

Introduction:

Poor indexing and inconsistent use of terms and keywords may prevent efficient retrieval of studies on the patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines. We aimed to develop and validate an objectively derived content search strategy containing generic search terms that can be adapted for any search for evidence on patient-based BRA of medicines for any therapeutic area.

Methods:

We used a robust multistep process to develop and validate the content search strategy: (1) we developed a bank of search terms derived from screening studies on patient-based BRA of medicines in various therapeutic areas, (2) we refined the proposed content search strategy through an iterative process of testing sensitivity and precision of search terms, and (3) we validated the final search strategy in PubMed by firstly using multiple sclerosis as a case condition and secondly computing its relative performance versus a published systematic review on patient-based BRA of medicines in rheumatoid arthritis.

Results:

We conceptualized a final search strategy to retrieve studies on patient-based BRA containing generic search terms grouped into two domains, namely the patient and the BRA of medicines (sensitivity 84%, specificity 99.4%, precision 20.7%). The relative performance of the content search strategy was 85.7% compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We also developed a more extended filter, with a relative performance of 93.3% when compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in lung cancer.

'I need someone to believe in me and walk the journey with me': A qualitative analysis of preferred approaches to weight management discussions in clinical care among adults with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To explore the preferences of adults with type 2 diabetes regarding the approach to weight management discussions in clinical care.

METHODS

Online survey of Australian adults with type 2 diabetes, recruited via a national diabetes registry. Three open-ended questions explored participants' experiences and ideal approach to discussing weight management with health professionals. Data subjected to inductive thematic template analysis.

RESULTS

Participants were 254 adults, 58% aged 60+ years, 52% women and 35% insulin-treated. Five themes were developed to categorise participants' preferences for, as well as differing experiences of, weight management discussions: (1) collaborative, person-centred care: working together to make decisions and achieve outcomes, taking personal context into consideration; (2) balanced communication: open, clear messages encouraging action, empathy and kindness; (3) quality advice: knowledgeable health professionals, providing specific details or instructions; (4) weight management intervention: suitable modalities to address weight management and (5) system-wide support: referral and access to appropriate multi-disciplinary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants expressed preferences for discussing weight management in collaborative, person-centred consultations, with quality advice and personalised interventions across the health system, delivered with empathy. By adopting these recommendations, health professionals may build constructive partnerships with adults with type 2 diabetes and foster weight management.

Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at-risk populations

Treatments used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are under investigation for their efficacy to prevent RA in at risk groups. It is therefore important to understand treatment preferences of those at risk. We systematically reviewed quantitative preference studies of drugs to treat, or prevent RA, to inform the design of further studies and trials of RA prevention. Stated preference studies for RA treatment or prevention were identified through a search of five databases. Study characteristics and results were extracted, and the relative importance of different types of treatment attributes was compared across populations. Twenty three studies were included 20 of RA treatments (18 of patients; 2 of the general public) and 3 prevention studies with first-degree relatives (FDRs). Benefits, risks, administration method and cost (when included) were important determinants of treatment choice. A benefit was more important than a risk attribute in half of the studies of RA treatment that included a benefit attribute and 2/3 studies of RA prevention. There was variability in the relative importance of attributes across the few prevention studies. In studies with non-patient participants, attributes describing confidence in treatment effectiveness/safety were more important determinants of choice than in studies with patients. Most preference studies relating to RA are of treatments for established RA. Few studies examine preferences for treatments to prevent RA. Given intense research focus on RA prevention, additional preference studies in this context are needed. Variation in treatment preferences across different populations is not well understood and direct comparisons are needed.

Patient Preference Studies for Advanced Prostate Cancer Treatment Along the Medical Product Life Cycle: Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Patient preference studies can inform decision-making across all stages of the medical product life cycle (MPLC). The treatment landscape for advanced prostate cancer (APC) treatment has substantially changed in recent years. However, the most patient-relevant aspects of APC treatment remain unclear. This systematic review of patient preference studies in APC aimed to summarize the evidence on patient preferences and patient-relevant aspects of APC treatments, and to evaluate the potential contribution of existing studies to decision-making within the respective stages of the MPLC.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies evaluating patient preferences related to APC treatment up to October 2020. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction and quality assessment in duplicate. We descriptively summarized the findings and analyzed the studies regarding their contribution within the MPLC using an analytical framework.

RESULTS

Seven quantitative preference studies were included. One study each was conducted in the marketing approval and the health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement stage, and five were conducted in the post-marketing stage of the MPLC. While almost all stated to inform clinical practice, the specific contributions to clinical decision-making remained unclear for almost all studies. Evaluated attributes related to benefits, harms, and other treatment-related aspects and their relative importance varied relevantly between studies. All studies were judged of high quality overall, but some methodological issues regarding sample selection and the definition of patient-relevant treatment attributes were identified.

CONCLUSION

The most patient-relevant aspects regarding the benefits and harms of APC treatment are not yet established, and it remains unclear which APC treatments are preferred by patients. Findings from this study highlight the importance of transparent reporting and discussion of study findings according to their aims and with respect to their stage within the MPLC. Future research may benefit from using the MPLC framework for analyzing or determining the aims and design of patient preference studies.

A Systematic Review of Patients' Values, Preferences, and Expectations for the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

Advances in systemic agents have increased overall survival for men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. Additional cytoreductive prostate treatments and metastasis-directed therapies are under evaluation. These confer toxicity but may offer incremental survival benefits. Thus, an understanding of patients' values and treatment preferences is important for counselling, decision-making, and guideline development.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of patients' values, preferences, and expectations regarding treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for qualitative and preference elucidation studies reporting on patients' preferences for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) or GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020201420.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 1491 participants from 15 studies met the prespecified eligibility for inclusion. The study designs included were discrete choice experiments (n = 5), mixed methods (n = 3), and qualitative methods (n = 7). Disease states reported per study were: metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in nine studies (60.0%), metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in two studies (13.3%), and a mixed cohort in four studies (26.6%). In quantitative preference elicitation studies, patients consistently valued treatment effectiveness and delay in time to symptoms as the two top-ranked treatment attributes (low or very low certainty). Patients were willing to trade off treatment-related toxicity for potential oncological benefits (low certainty). In qualitative studies, thematic analysis revealed cancer progression and/or survival, pain, and fatigue as key components in treatment decisions (low or very low certainty). Patients continue to value oncological benefits in making decisions on treatments under qualitative assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited understanding of how patients make treatment and trade-off decisions following a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer. For appropriate investment in emerging cytoreductive local tumour and metastasis-directed therapies, we should seek to better understand how this cohort weighs the oncological benefits against the risks.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at how men with advanced (metastatic) prostate cancer make treatment decisions. We found that little is known about patients' preferences for current and proposed new treatments. Further studies are required to understand how patients make decisions to help guide the integration of new treatments into the standard of care.

Stated Preference Research in Reproductive and Maternal Healthcare Services in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Understanding the preferred choice of healthcare service attributes for women is important, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa where resources are constrained and improving reproductive and maternal healthcare services is of high importance. The aim of this systematic review was to identify attributes of reproductive and maternal healthcare services in sub-Saharan Africa, and summarise the factors shaping women's preference to access these services.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched from the inception of each database until March 2021 for published studies reporting stated preferences for maternal and reproductive healthcare services in sub-Saharan Africa. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction sheet, and the quality of reporting of included studies was assessed using PREFS and ISPOR (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research) checklists. The Donabedian's model for quality of healthcare was used to categorise attributes into "structure", "process" and "outcome".

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies (12 discrete choice experiments and one best-worst scaling study) were included. Attributes related to the structure of healthcare services (e.g. availability of technical equipment, medications or diagnostic facilities, having good system conditions) are often included within the studies, and are considered the most important by women. Of the three dimensions of quality of healthcare, the outcome dimension was the least frequently studied across studies. All except one study explored women's preferences and the participants were pregnant women, women aged 18-49 years who had recently given birth and women living with human immunodeficiency virus. The included studies came from five sub-Saharan Africa countries of which Ethiopia and South Africa each contributed three studies. All of the included studies reported on the purpose, findings and significance of the study. However, none of the studies reported on the differences between responders vs non-responders. Nine of the 13 studies employed the ISPOR checklist and reported each item including the research question and the methods for identifying and selecting attributes, and provided the findings in sufficient detail and clarity.

CONCLUSIONS

Aligning maternal healthcare service provision with women's preferences may foster client-oriented services and thereby improve service uptake and better patient outcomes.

Preferences of Cognitively Impaired Patients and Patients Living with Dementia: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Patient Preference Studies

BACKGROUND

Treatment decisions based on guidelines rather than patients' preferences determine adherence to and compliance with treatment, which, in turn, could improve health-related outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the stated treatment and care preferences of people with dementia (PwD).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to assess the stated preferences of PwD. The inclusion criterion was the use of quantitative methods to elicit stated preferences, enabling a ranking of preferences.

RESULTS

Eleven studies revealed preferences for diagnostics, treatment decisions, patient-related outcomes, care services, end-of-life care, leisure activities, and digital life story work. PwDs prefer accurate, pain-free, and comfortable diagnostic procedures without radioactive markers as well as being accompanied by a caregiver. PwD's quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy, and depression were equally most important for PwD and caregivers. However, PwD memory was only important for caregivers but not for PwD, and caregiver QoL was moderately important for PwD but least important for caregivers. Additionally, comfort and family involvement were most important for patients' end-of-life care, whereas caregivers most preferred good communication and pain management. Also, preferences depend on the living situation: Patients living not alone prefer a regular care provider most, whereas those living alone only want to live nearby the caregiver. Preferences for leisure activities did not differ between past and present ratings, indicating that PwD prefer activities that have always been carried out.

CONCLUSION

Only a few studies have applied quantitative methods to elicit the preferences of PwD. More research is needed to capture the stated preferences for the treatment, care, and support of PwD to improve health-related outcomes and the allocation of healthcare resources.

A Systematic and Critical Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

Regulators have called for greater emphasis on the role of the patient voice to inform medical product development and decision making, and expert guidelines and reports for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) both explicitly recommend the consideration of patient preferences in the management of these diseases. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used to quantify stakeholders’ treatment preferences and estimate the trade-offs they are willing to make between outcomes such as treatment benefits and risks.

Objective

The aim of this systematic literature review is to provide an up-to-date and critical review of DCEs published in asthma and COPD; specifically, we aim to evaluate the subject of preference studies conducted in asthma and COPD, what attributes have been included, stakeholders’ preferences, and the consistency in reporting of instrument development, testing and reporting of results.

Methods

A systematic review of published DCEs on asthma and COPD treatments was conducted using Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Studies were included if they included a DCE conducted in a relevant population (e.g. patients with asthma or COPD or their caregivers, asthma or COPD-treating clinicians, or the general population), and reported quantitative outcomes on participants’ preferences. Study characteristics were summarised descriptively, and descriptive analyses of attribute categories, consistency in reporting on key criteria, and stakeholder preferences were undertaken.

Results

A total of 33 eligible studies were identified, including 28 unique DCEs. The majority (n = 20; 71%) of studies were conducted in a patient sample. Studies focused on inhaler treatments, and included attributes in five key categories: symptoms and treatment benefits (n = 23; 82%), treatment convenience (n = 19; 68%), treatment cost (n = 17; 61%), treatment risks (n = 13; 46%), and other (n = 10; 36%). Symptoms and treatment benefits were the attributes most frequently ranked as important to patients (n = 26, 72%), followed by treatment risks (n = 7, 39%). Several studies (n = 9, 32%) did not qualitatively pre-test their DCE, and a majority did not report the uncertainty in estimated outcomes (n = 18; 64%).

Conclusions

DCEs in asthma and COPD have focused on treatment benefits and convenience, with less evidence generated on participants’ risk tolerance. Quality criteria and reporting standards are needed to promote study quality and ensure consistency in reporting between studies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00536-w.

Values, preferences and burden of treatment for the initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors in adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Assess values, preferences and burden of treatment that patients with type 2 diabetes consider when initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) compared with other glucose-lowering options.

METHODS

Paired reviewers independently included studies reporting quantitative or qualitative methods to assess values, preferences and burden of treatment reported by patients with type 2 diabetes regarding the initiation of GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2i over other alternatives. A systematic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until May 2020 was performed by an experienced librarian. Risk of bias was assessed with a specifically designed tool for values and preferences studies.

RESULTS

17 studies (7296 patients) proved eligible. Studies fulfilling criteria for SGLT-2i were not identified. Five studies (2662 patients) evaluated preferences for GLP-1 RA compared with other glucose-lowering medications. 12 studies (4634 patients) evaluated preferences between, at least, two kinds of GLP-1 RA or their injection devices based on the following attributes: efficacy, dose, application frequency, device characteristics. Among studies comparing GLP-1 RA to other glucose-lowering medications, some preferences were observed for dypeptil peptidase-4 inhibitors compared with once daily liraglutide. Comparing different attributes of GLP-1 RA drugs and devices, cardiovascular risk reduction, glucose lowering potential, once weekly and simple administered regimens were the most preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

As no evidence for preferences on SGLT-2i was available, only preferences for GLP-1 RA were assessed; however, evidence is still limited for the latter. Studies comparing preferences for GLP1-RA to other glucose-lowering alternatives only included twice daily or once daily injection regimens of GLP-1 RA drugs. According to our findings, once weekly alternatives are widely preferred than the formers. The extent to which patients with type 2 diabetes value reduced adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, weighed benefits against harms and burden of treatment is limited and with very low certainty.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020159284.

[GRADE guidelines 20: Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains]

OBJECTIVE

To provide Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance for assessing inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains for the certainty of evidence about the relative importance of outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We applied the GRADE domains to rate the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes to several systematic reviews, iteratively reviewed draft guidance, and consulted GRADE members and other stakeholders for feedback.

RESULTS

We describe the rationale for considering the remaining GRADE domains when rating the certainty in a body of evidence for the relative importance of outcomes. As meta-analyses are not common in this context, inconsistency and imprecision assessments are challenging. Furthermore, confusion exists about inconsistency, imprecision, and true variability in the relative importance of outcomes. To clarify this issue, we suggest that the true variability is neither equivalent to inconsistency nor imprecision. Specifically, inconsistency arises from population, intervention, comparison and outcome and methodological elements that should be explored and, if possible, explained. The width of the confidence interval and sample size inform judgments about imprecision. We also provide suggestions on how to detect publication bias and discuss the domains to rate up the certainty.

CONCLUSION

We provide guidance and examples for rating inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains for a body of evidence describing the relative importance of outcomes.

Do people have differing motivations for participating in a stated-preference study? Results from a latent-class analysis

BACKGROUND

Researchers and policy makers have long suspected that people have differing, and potentially nefarious, motivations for participating in stated-preference studies such as discrete-choice experiments (DCE). While anecdotes and theories exist on why people participate in surveys, there is a paucity of evidence exploring variation in preferences for participating in stated-preference studies.

METHODS

We used a DCE to estimate preferences for participating in preference research among an online survey panel sample. Preferences for the characteristics of a study to be conducted at a local hospital were assessed across five attributes (validity, relevance, bias, burden, time and payment) and described across three levels using a starring system. A D-efficient experimental design was used to construct three blocks of 12 choice tasks with two profiles each. Respondents were also asked about factors that motivated their choices. Mixed logistic regression was used to analyze the aggregate sample and latent class analysis identified segments of respondents.

RESULTS

629 respondents completed the experiment. In aggregate "study validity" was most important. Latent class results identified two segments based on underlying motivations: a quality-focused segment (76%) who focused most on validity, relevance, and bias and a convenience-focused segment (24%) who focused most on reimbursement and time. Quality-focused respondents spent more time completing the survey (p < 0.001) and were more likely to identify data quality (p < 0.01) and societal well-being (p < 0.01) as motivations to participate.

CONCLUSIONS

This information can be used to better understand variability in motivations to participate in stated-preference surveys and the impact of motivations on response quality.

Patient and Healthcare Provider Perspectives of First-Generation Somatostatin Analogs in the Management of Neuroendocrine Tumors and Acromegaly: A Systematic Literature Review

Introduction

Somatostatin analogs (SSAs) are used to treat neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and acromegaly. Two first-generation SSAs, octreotide long-acting release (OCT LAR) and lanreotide autogel/depot (LAN), are available. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to investigate which characteristics beyond efficacy are most important in patient and healthcare practitioner (HCP) experience of LAN and OCT when used to treat acromegaly and NETs.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect were searched from database inception to January 2019 with terms for first-generation SSAs, NETs, acromegaly, preferences, decision-making, and human factors. Key congresses in 2016–2018 and SLR bibliographies were hand-searched. Two independent reviewers screened articles at title/abstract and full-text stage. Publications fulfilling pre-specified inclusion criteria reported patient or HCP perspectives of LAN or OCT, or any factors affecting treatment perspectives for NETs or acromegaly.

Results

A total of 1110 unique records were screened, of which 21 studies were included, reporting from the perspectives of patients (n = 18) and/or HCPs (n = 9). Perspectives were collected using shared decision-making frameworks, questionnaires, informal patient opinion, and a Delphi panel. Where patient preference was specifically reported, LAN was preferred in 4/5 studies and OCT LAR in 1/5. Common factors underlying treatment experience included technical problems with injections and associated pain, emotional quality/anxiety of injections, time and convenience of treatment administration, and independence. Immediate aspects of injections appeared most important to patients, though the possibilities of extended dosing intervals and self-/partner-injection with LAN were also notable factors.

Conclusions

Study outcomes favored LAN in this SLR, with factors surrounding injection administration most influential in treatment experience. The findings of this SLR provide a basis that could inform development of decision-making criteria, with patient and HCP treatment perspectives considered. Future studies should utilize a common method to report preference and associated drivers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-020-01600-x.

[GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences: Risk of bias and indirectness]

OBJECTIVES

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group defines patient values and preferences as the relative importance patients place on the main health outcomes. We provide GRADE guidance for assessing the risk of bias and indirectness domains for certainty of evidence about the relative importance of outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We applied the GRADE domains to rate the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes to several systematic reviews, iteratively reviewed draft guidance and consulted GRADE members and other stakeholders for feedback.

RESULTS

This is the first of two articles. A body of evidence addressing the importance of outcomes starts at "high certainty"; concerns with risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias lead to downgrading to moderate, low, or very low certainty. We propose the following subdomains of risk of bias: selection of the study population, missing data, the type of measurement instrument, and confounding; we have developed items for each subdomain. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcome elements associated with the evidence determine the degree of indirectness.

CONCLUSION

This article provides guidance and examples for rating the risk of bias and indirectness for a body of evidence summarizing the importance of outcomes.

What Are the Preferences of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis for Treatment Modification? A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Optimal care of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients entails regular assessment of disease activity and appropriate adjustment of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) until a predefined treatment goal is achieved. This raises questions about the approach to treatment decision making among RA patients and their preference for associated treatment changes. We aimed to systematically identify and synthesize the available evidence of RA patients' preferences regarding DMARD modification with an emphasis on escalating, tapering, stopping, or switching of DMARDs.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken to gauge the breadth of evidence from the range of studies relating to RA patients' preferences for DMARD modification. Pertinent databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1988 and 2019. Conventional content analysis was applied to generate themes about how patients perceive changes to their RA treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 1730 distinct articles identified, 32 were included for review. Eight studies investigated RA patients' perceptions of switching to other DMARDs, 18 studies reported RA patients' preferences for escalating treatment, and six studies explored the possibility of tapering or stopping of biologic DMARDs. Four overarching themes relating to RA patients' preferences for treatment modification were identified: (i) patient satisfaction, (ii) patients' beliefs, (iii) information needs, and (iv) patient-clinician relationships.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of treatment changes in clinical practice can be improved by understanding how RA patients approach the decision to modify their treatment and how this relates to their satisfaction, beliefs, information needs, and relationships with clinicians. Future work is needed to systematically determine the significance of these factors in RA patients' decision-making processes.

Eliciting Preferences for HIV Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review

Background

Many human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention technologies (pre-exposure prophylaxis, microbicides, vaccines) are available or in development. Preference elicitation methods provide insight into client preferences that may be used to optimize products and services. Given increased utilization of such methods in HIV prevention, this article identifies and reviews these methods and synthesizes their application to HIV prevention technologies.

Methods

In May 2020, we systematically searched peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science for studies employing quantitative preference elicitation methods to measure preferences for HIV prevention technologies among populations of any age, sex, or location. Quality assessment used an existing checklist (PREFS) and a novel adaptation of the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (PROSPERO #CRD42018087027).

Results

We screened 5022 titles and abstracts, reviewed 318 full texts, and included 84 studies. Common methods employed were discrete-choice experiment (33%), conjoint analysis (25%), and willingness-to-participate/try/accept (21%). Studies were conducted in 25 countries and had a mean of 768 participants (range = 26–7176), two-thirds of them male. Common HIV prevention technologies included pre-exposure prophylaxis (23%), voluntary testing and counseling (19%), HIV self-testing (17%), vaccines (15%), and topical microbicides (9%). Most attributes focused on product design (side effects, frequency), service design (provider type, location), acceptability or willingness to accept/pay; results are summarized in these categories, by prevention type. Mean quality-adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale score was 4.5/8 (standard deviation = 2.1) and mean PREFS scores was 3.47/5 (standard deviation = 0.81).

Conclusions

This review synthesizes extant literature on quantitative measurement of preferences for HIV prevention technologies. This can enable practitioners to improve prevention products and interventions, and ultimately reduce HIV incidence.

Preferences of people with Type 2 diabetes for diabetes care: a discrete choice experiment

AIMS

Limited knowledge exists on the preferences of people with Type 2 diabetes towards diabetes care. Consequently, these care preferences cannot yet be considered in the development of tailored diabetes care approaches. Therefore, this study aimed to assess care preferences and their determinants in people with Type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted to elicit people's preferences. People with Type 2 diabetes, treated in 30 Dutch primary care practices, were asked to choose repeatedly between two hypothetical diabetes care packages, which differed in six attributes: role division in daily diabetes care planning, lifestyle education method, type of medication management support, consultation frequency, emotional support and time spend on self-management. A mixed-logit model was used to estimate the relative importance of the included attributes. Preference heterogeneity among people with different person- and disease-related characteristics was investigated.

RESULTS

In total, 288 participants completed the experiment. They preferred to plan their daily diabetes care together with a healthcare provider, to receive individual lifestyle education, medication and emotional support from a healthcare provider, one consultation visit every 3 months and to spend less time on self-management. Participants did not prefer to receive emotional support from a psychologist. Heterogeneity in preferences could partly be explained by differences in sex, education level and glucose-lowering drug use.

CONCLUSION

People with Type 2 diabetes show a preference for traditional care models. Emotional support was identified by participants as the most important attribute. It is therefore important to adequately guide them when changes in diabetes care organization are implemented.

Parent, provider and vaccinee preferences for HPV vaccination: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review, appraise and evaluate available evidence regarding discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) for the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination in order to support policymakers in making reasonable and effective vaccination program implementation decisions.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted using the databases PubMed and Embase for DCEs in HPV up to May 2019. Extracted data was tabulated and two checklists were used for the quality appraisal of the included studies. All attributes were categorized in outcome, process or costs attributes and the relative importance of attributes was calculated using the range method.

RESULTS

Out of 164 identified studies, 12 met the inclusion criteria. Eight were from high income countries (HICs) and four from low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Five studies each examined vaccinee and parent preferences, while only two assessed the providers' preferences. The studies were rather heterogenous in terms of the populations investigated, the attributes included and the methodologic approach. Overall, outcome measures were the most prominent attributes and effectiveness consistently yielded high relative importance scores. But also process factors, such as the age at vaccination, played an important role for decision making. Discrepancies between HICs and LMICs were most prominent for cost attributes.

CONCLUSION

The heterogenous preferences this review elicited highlight the importance of context when making decisions grounded on consumer preferences. Especially the lack of evidence from LMICs, where the burden of cervical cancer is highest, is worrisome. In order to increase uptake, close vaccination gaps and reduce current inequities in (reproductive) healthcare, policy makers need to understand the features that drive individual vaccination decisions and adapt national and clinical guidelines accordingly. Future research therefore needs to focus on LMICs in order to elicit preferences of those most vulnerable populations.

Preferences of people with type 2 diabetes for telemedical lifestyle programmes in Germany: protocol of a discrete choice experiment

INTRODUCTION

Telemedical lifestyle programmes for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) provide an opportunity to develop a healthier lifestyle and consequently to improve health outcomes. When implementing new programmes into standard care, considering patients' preferences may increase the success of the participants. This study aims to examine the preferences of people with T2DM with respect to telemedical lifestyle programmes, to analyse whether these preferences predict programme success and to explore the changes that may occur during a telemedical lifestyle intervention.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We outline the protocol of the development and assessment of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to examine patient preferences in a telemedical lifestyle programme with regard to the functions of the online portal, communication, responsibilities, group activities and time requirements. To develop the design of the DCE, we conducted pilot work involving healthcare experts and in particular people with T2DM using cognitive pretesting. The final DCE is being implemented within a randomised controlled trial for investigating whether participation in a telemedical lifestyle intervention programme sustainably improves the HbA1c values in 850 members of a large German statutory health insurance with T2DM. Preferences are being assessed before and after participants complete the programme. The DCE data will be analysed using regression and latent class analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The DCE study has been approved by the ethics committee of the medical faculty of the Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf, registration number 2018-242-ProspDEuA, registered on 6 December 2018. The TeLIPro trial is registered at the US National Library of Medicine, registration number NCT03675919, registered on 15 September 2018. We aim to disseminate our results in peer-reviewed journals, at national and international conferences and among interested patient groups and the public.

Patient Preferences for Breast Cancer Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

INTRODUCTION

Understanding how patients value different characteristics of an intervention and make trade-offs in a therapy choice context with potential benefit and possible harm may result in decisions for which a better reflected value is delivered. This systematic review summarizes patient preferences for breast cancer treatments elicited by discrete choice experiments (DCE).

METHODOLOGY

The electronic databases MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, and Web of Science were last searched on May 9, 2019 without restrictions regarding language and time of publication. Original studies reporting patient preferences related to breast cancer treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, endocrine therapy, chemotherapy or palliative care) elicited by DCE were eligible. A narrative synthesis of the relative importance and trade-offs of the treatment attributes of each study was reported.

RESULTS

Five studies conducted in Japan, Thailand, USA and the Netherlands with 146-298 participants evaluated preferences regarding chemotherapy regimens for advanced/metastatic disease, and breast reconstruction after mastectomy. The attributes with major relative effects on preferences were greater survival, better aesthetic result of the surgery, and lower side effects and complication rates. Patients would trade a better aesthetic result to minimize complication rates, and, in advanced disease, the willingness to pay was greater for gains in survival and to avoid some severe adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Despite the relative lack of evidence in this specific context, our review shows that breast cancer patients naturally value greater benefit and, in scenarios of advanced and metastatic disease, are willing to face risks of some side effects for gains in survival.

The importance of understanding patient and physician preferences for psoriasis treatment characteristics: a systematic review of discrete-choice experiments

Introduction: Treatment adherence continues to be a major challenge in psoriasis. Patient preference studies, especially discrete-choice experiments, are gaining popularity to gather insights into patient reported treatment outcomes. This systematic literature review aimed to critically assess all discrete choice experiments exploring patients' and physicians' preferences for psoriasis treatment characteristics.Methods: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched using keywords "psoriasis" and "preferences" to identify relevant literature. Discrete-choice experiments conducted in French or English from the year 2000 onwards, that focused on evaluating psoriasis treatment preferences in patients and/or physicians, were included. The relative importance of treatment attributes was assessed and studies were critically appraised using validated checklists.Results: Out of 987 articles identified, 25 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, patients and physicians prioritize efficacy-specific outcomes. Patients are shown to place greater importance to process attributes when compared to physicians, especially route and location of administration. Physicians focus primarily of efficacy attributes, however when the top two attributes are considered, safety outcomes increasingly become considered important. Of the studies, 60% conducted subgroup analysis, of which many reported associations between specific patient characteristics and preferences. Factors such as age, disease severity, and duration of condition significantly affected preferences for treatment attributes.Conclusions: This review provides insight into the types of attributes that patients and physicians value most, and therefore can help improve shared decision-making. The findings of this study also encourage regulatory agencies to continue integrating patient preferences in their decision-making.

Patients' preferences for the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments

Introduction: Matching available mental health services to patients' preferences, as well as is possible, may increase patient satisfaction and help increase adherence to certain treatments. This study systematically reviewed discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) on patients' preferences for treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders and assessed the relative importance of outcome, process and cost attributes to improve the current and future treatment situations.Methods: A systematic literature review using PubMed, EMBASE and PsychInfo was conducted to retrieve all relevant DCEs published up to 15 April 2019, eliciting patient preferences for treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders. Data were extracted using an extraction sheet, and attributes were classified into outcome, process and cost attributes. The relative importance of each attribute category was then assessed, and studies were evaluated according to their reporting quality, using validated checklists.Results: A total of 11 studies were identified for qualitative analysis. All studies received an aggregate score of 4 on the five-point PREFS checklist (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance). Most attributes were outcome related (52%), followed by process (42%) and cost (6%) attributes. Comparing the attribute categories and summing up the relative importance weights for each category within the studies, process attributes were ranked as most important, followed by cost and outcome attributes.Conclusions: In this systematic review, heterogeneous results were observed regarding the inclusion and framing of different attributes across studies. Overall, patients considered process and cost attributes to be more important than outcome attributes. Outcomes and process are important for patients, and thus clinicians should be particularly aware of this and take patients' preferences into account, although the attribute importance may depend on chosen attributes and related levels.

Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy - A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify methods used to assess medication preferences in older adults and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages with respect to their applicability to the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO) were searched. Eligible studies elicited individual treatment or outcome preferences in a context that involved long-term pharmacological treatment options. We included studies with a study population aged ≥ 65 years and/or with a mean or median age of ≥ 75 years. Qualitative studies, studies assessing preferences for only two different treatments, and studies targeting preferences for life-sustaining treatments were excluded. The identified preference measurement methods were evaluated based on four criteria (time budget, cognitive demand, variety of pharmacological aspects, and link with treatment strategies) judged to be relevant for the elicitation of patient preferences in polypharmacy.

RESULTS

Sixty articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis. Fifty-five different instruments to assess patient preferences, based on 24 different elicitation methods, were identified. The most commonly applied preference measurement techniques were "medication willingness" (description of a specific medication with inquiry of the participant's willingness to take it), discrete choice experiments, Likert scale-based questionnaires, and rank prioritization. The majority of the instruments were created for disease-specific or context-specific settings. Only three instruments (Outcome Prioritization Tool, a complex intervention, "MediMol" questionnaire) dealt with the broader issue of geriatric multimorbidity. Only seven of the identified tools showed somewhat favorable characteristics for a potential use of the respective method in the context of polypharmacy.

CONCLUSION

Up to now, few instruments have been specifically designed for the assessment of medication preferences in older patients with multimorbidity. To facilitate valid preference elicitation in the context of geriatric polypharmacy, future research should focus on suitable characteristics of existing techniques to develop new measurement approaches for this increasingly relevant population.

Patients' and Clinicians' Preferences on Outcomes and Medication Attributes for Type 2 Diabetes: a Mixed-Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Patients' views on the relative importance of treatment outcomes and medication attributes for type 2 diabetes may differ from clinicians' perceptions.

OBJECTIVE

To assess which treatment outcomes and medication attributes are considered important by patients and clinicians for therapeutic decisions in type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

Exploratory, sequential, mixed-methods design comprising a qualitative (focus groups) and a quantitative (survey) phase.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients in the focus groups (n = 33) and the survey study (n = 656) were recruited from 4 and 9 diabetes clinics across Greece, respectively. Clinicians in the survey study (n = 363) were identified from Greek registries for healthcare professionals.

MEASUREMENTS

We conducted 6 focus groups to obtain patients' views regarding the impact of type 2 diabetes on their lives. Identified themes informed the development of a survey, which aimed to assess which outcomes and medication attributes are considered most important by patients and clinicians. We calculated odds ratios to compare patients' and clinicians' responses.

RESULTS

The focus groups identified 6 main themes and 15 subthemes. In the survey study, patients were more likely than clinicians to rate prevention of amputation (odds ratio, 9.32; 95% CI, 6.51 to 13.35), diabetic eye disease (6.16; 4.63 to 8.21), sexual dysfunction, and stroke as important, while clinicians were more likely than patients to choose risk for hypoglycemia, and reduction of all-cause mortality, HbA1c, and body weight. Compared with clinicians, patients were less concerned about drug cost (0.16; 0.11 to 0.23), but more concerned about route of administration and need for less frequent glucose self-monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and clinicians differ in the perception of the relative importance of treatment outcomes and drug characteristics. Individual patient preferences should be explored and implemented in the therapeutic decision-making for type 2 diabetes.

Patient-reported data informing early benefit assessment of rare diseases in Germany: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Since the implementation of the Regulation on Patient Integration (2003), the Act on the Reorganization of the Pharmaceutical Market (2011), and the Patient Rights Law (2013), the inclusion of patient perspectives has been further anchored in the German early benefit assessment process. During the assessment of rare disease interventions, patient perspectives are particularly important, as clinical studies are often designed acknowledging small samples and patients suffering from severe symptoms and the chronic course of the disease. Therefore, our research question is whether patient perspectives are considered as part of early benefit assessments for rare diseases. We also strive to examine how patient perspectives are methodologically elicited and presented.

METHODS

Our empirical evidence comes from a systematic review of orphan drug value dossiers submitted to the German Federal Joint Committee as well as the corresponding evaluations conducted between January 1, 2011 and March 1, 2019 (n = 81). Data on patient perspective integration were extracted using the following patient-reported outcome subcategories: clinical patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life, patient preferences, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

The analysis demonstrates the specific relevance of patient-reported outcomes raised as part of the medical data set and presented during the early benefit assessment process. They are predominantly presented in the form of health-related quality of life data (n = 75%) and clinical outcomes (n = 49%). Preferences (n = 2%) and satisfaction (n = 1%) are still rarely presented, although the heated methodological discussion in Germany would suggest otherwise. While various methodologies for the integration of clinical outcomes and quality of life data were found, presenting data on satisfaction and preferences still lacks methodological rigor. The German Federal Joint Committee has not yet integrated these data in their decision text. Clinical outcomes and quality of life have been included in 46% and 73% of the cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The underlying analysis demonstrates that there is still a relative high potential for the regular and systematic inclusion of patient perspectives within the early benefit assessment process for rare diseases. In particular, patient preferences and patient satisfaction are still rarely included suggesting the need for a clear-cut methodological foundation and incentives.

Patient Perceptions of Diabetes Guideline Frameworks for Individualizing Glycemic Targets

IMPORTANCE

Diabetes guidelines recommend considering specific factors, such as diabetes duration and life expectancy, to individualize treatment in older adults. These individualized glycemic targets inform decisions on whether to intensify or deintensify medication treatment plans. How older adults with diabetes perceive these factors used to individualize glycemic targets is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To examine how older adults perceive factors used in diabetes guidelines for individualizing glycemic targets.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cross-sectional national survey was conducted from December 13, 2018, to January 3, 2019, of a nationally representative, probability-based online survey panel (KnowledgePanel). A total of 1364 KnowledgePanel members who were 65 years or older and had type 2 diabetes were invited to participate in the survey; 836 (61.3%) responded, and 818 (60.0%) completed the survey.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The study randomized participants to 2 vignettes: one about adding and the other about removing diabetes medications from treatment plans. Participants rated the importance of 7 factors (diabetes duration, established diabetes complications, other health conditions, life expectancy, risk of adverse effects, cost, and treatment effort) in these treatment decisions using binary (yes/no) responses and the best-worst scaling method to quantify the factors' relative importance. All participants then answered questions on how different levels of each factor were associated with aggressiveness of diabetes treatment.

RESULTS

The sample included 818 participants (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [6.8] years; 469 [53.7%] male; and 668 [67.7%] white). A total of 410 participants answered questions about adding medicine, whereas 408 participants answered questions about stopping medicine. Of the 7 factors to consider for adding a diabetes medication to the treatment plan, the number who deemed each factor important ranged from 197 (45.6%) to 263 (62.8%). In contrast, these same factors were considered important by only 29 (8.4%) to 146 (37.7%) of participants when deciding to stop use of a diabetes medication. In both decisions, participants perceived the risk of adverse effects as the most important factor (relative importance was 22.8 for adding a medicine and 25.0 for stopping a medicine on a ratio scale in which, for each decision, the relative importance of the 7 factors adds up to 100, with 0 indicating complete indifference and 100 complete priority). In contrast to current guideline recommendations, most participants believed that patients with longer disease duration (498 [60.1%]), more established complications (632 [75.6%]), and greater number of other health conditions (545 [67.5%]) should receive more aggressive diabetes treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Many older adults do not place high importance on factors recommended by guidelines to individualize diabetes treatment, especially when deciding to stop use of diabetes medications. Moreover, when considering treatment aggressiveness, many older adults weighted several factors in the opposite direction than suggested by the guidelines. Individualizing diabetes care in older adults will require effective communication regarding the benefits and consequences of making changes to treatment plans.

Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The inclusion of patient preferences (PP) in the medical product life cycle is a topic of growing interest to stakeholders such as academics, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, reimbursement agencies, industry, patients, physicians and regulators. This review aimed to understand the potential roles, reasons for using PP and the expectations, concerns and requirements associated with PP in industry processes, regulatory benefit-risk assessment (BRA) and marketing authorization (MA), and HTA and reimbursement decision-making.

METHODS

A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2011 and March 2018 was performed. Consulted databases were EconLit, Embase, Guidelines International Network, PsycINFO and PubMed. A two-step strategy was used to select literature. Literature was analyzed using NVivo (QSR international).

RESULTS

From 1015 initially identified documents, 72 were included. Most were written from an academic perspective (61%) and focused on PP in BRA/MA and/or HTA/reimbursement (73%). Using PP to improve understanding of patients' valuations of treatment outcomes, patients' benefit-risk trade-offs and preference heterogeneity were roles identified in all three decision-making contexts. Reasons for using PP relate to the unique insights and position of patients and the positive effect of including PP on the quality of the decision-making process. Concerns shared across decision-making contexts included methodological questions concerning the validity, reliability and cognitive burden of preference methods. In order to use PP, general, operational and quality requirements were identified, including recognition of the importance of PP and ensuring patient understanding in PP studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the array of opportunities and added value of using PP throughout the different steps of the MPLC identified in this review, their inclusion in decision-making is hampered by methodological challenges and lack of specific guidance on how to tackle these challenges when undertaking PP studies. To support the development of such guidance, more best practice PP studies and PP studies investigating the methodological issues identified in this review are critically needed.

Evidence of patient beliefs, values, and preferences is not provided in osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines

We examined how patient beliefs, values, and preferences (BVPs) were included and conceptualized in international osteoporosis guidelines. The majority of guidelines did not mention BVPs. When mentioned, BVPs were conceptualized as preference for one medication over another. A broader conceptualization and inclusion of BVPs should be incorporated in osteoporosis guidelines.

INTRODUCTION

Our objectives were to determine (1) the extent to which osteoporosis guidelines reflected patients' beliefs, values, and preferences (BVPs); (2) how BVPs were conceptualized; and (3) the methods used to elicit BVPs in the references cited by the guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a document analysis of English-language international osteoporosis guidelines based on the International Osteoporosis Foundation website. We examined each guideline and extracted all instances of statements pertaining to BVPs. The statements were reviewed by two independent researchers. Discrepancies in data extraction were resolved by the first author. We developed categories based on five common elements that represented the BVP statements.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven of 70 (39%) guidelines included 95 statements about patient BVPs. Of the 95 statements, 32 statements (14 guidelines) were classified under BVP related to the choice of pharmacotherapy or general treatment, 10 (7 guidelines) under BVP related to adherence to pharmacotherapy or treatment in general, 5 (5 guidelines) under BVP related to financial costs and benefits, 43 (19 guidelines) under other BVP mentioned but not supported by a reference to a primary study or systematic review, and 5 (3 guidelines) under other BVP mentioned and supported by at least one reference to a primary study or systematic review. Twenty-nine references were cited to reflect the BVPs mentioned, including an editorial and quantitative studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-seven (39%) of the guidelines included mention of patients' BVPs. In 19 guidelines, the importance of BVPs was mentioned but these statements were not supported by references to a primary study or systematic review. BVPs were most often (14 guidelines) conceptualized as preference for one medication over another. We suggest that qualitative data be included as evidence of BVPs in guidelines.

Patient preferences for treatment in type 2 diabetes: the Italian discrete-choice experiment analysis

AIMS

Several drug classes are now available to achieve a satisfactory metabolic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), but patients' preferences may differ.

METHODS

In a discrete-choice experiment, we tested T2DM patients' preferences for recent antidiabetic drugs, in the event that their treatment might require intensification. The following attributes were considered: (a) route of administration; (b) type of delivery; (c) timing; (d) risk of adverse events; (e) effects on body weight. Twenty-two possible scenarios were built, transferred into 192 paired choices and proposed to 491 cases naïve to injectable treatments and 171 treated by GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). Analyses were performed by descriptive statistics and random effects logit regression model.

RESULTS

Preferences according to dosing frequency, risk of nausea and urinary tract infections (UTls) were similar across groups, age, sex and BMI. Administration route and delivery type accounted for 1/3 of relative importance; the risk of UTIs, nausea and dosing frequency for ≈ 20% each, and weight loss for only 6%. Two significant interactions emerged (p < 0.01): type of delivery × group, and weight change × BMI class. Irrespective of previous treatment, the three preferred choices were injectable, coupled with weekly dosing and a ready-to-use device (first two choices). In a regression model, being naïve or non-naïve changed the ranking of preferences (p < 0.001), and the order was systematically shifted towards injectable medications in non-naïve subjects.

CONCLUSION

Easy-to-deliver, injectable treatment is preferred in T2DM, independently of treatment history, and previous experience with GLP-1RAs strengthens patients' willingness to accept injectable drugs.

Personalizing Second-Line Type 2 Diabetes Treatment Selection: Combining Network Meta-analysis, Individualized Risk, and Patient Preferences for Unified Decision Support

BACKGROUND

Personalizing medical treatment often requires practitioners to compare multiple treatment options, assess a patient's unique risk and benefit from each option, and elicit a patient's preferences around treatment. We integrated these 3 considerations into a decision-modeling framework for the selection of second-line glycemic therapy for type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Based on multicriteria decision analysis, we developed a unified treatment decision support tool accounting for 3 factors: patient preferences, disease outcomes, and medication efficacy and safety profiles. By standardizing and multiplying these 3 factors, we calculated the ranking score for each medication. This approach was applied to determining second-line glycemic therapy by integrating 1) treatment efficacy and side-effect data from a network meta-analysis of 301 randomized trials ( N = 219,277), 2) validated risk equations for type 2 diabetes complications, and 3) patient preferences around treatment (e.g., to avoid daily glucose testing). Data from participants with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2003-2014, N = 1107) were used to explore variations in treatment recommendations and associated quality-adjusted life-years given different patient features.

RESULTS

Patients at the highest microvascular disease risk had glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists or basal insulin recommended as top choices, whereas those wanting to avoid an injected medication or daily glucose testing had sodium-glucose linked transporter 2 or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors commonly recommended, and those with major cost concerns had sulfonylureas commonly recommended. By converting from the most common sulfonylurea treatment to the model-recommended treatment, NHANES participants were expected to save an average of 0.036 quality-adjusted life-years per person (about a half month) from 10 years of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Models can help integrate meta-analytic treatment effect estimates with individualized risk calculations and preferences, to aid personalized treatment selection.

Patient preferences for glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor-agonist treatment attributes

PURPOSE

The importance of patient-centered care in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is widely advocated. Understanding the attributes of T2DM medications important to patients is thus essential for effective management, in order to limit disease progression. This literature review aimed to identify studies comparing patient preferences, based on process and outcome attributes, between GLP1-receptor agonist (RA) profiles and between GLP1 RA and insulin profiles.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library (2005-present) were searched for studies in patients with T2DM or the general population that compared preferences for GLP1 RAs or GLP1 RAs versus insulin using contingent valuation, conjoint analysis (discrete-choice experiments [DCEs], willingness to pay), rating-based approaches of specific attributes, standard gamble, or time trade-off. Studies comparing drug A versus drug B without explicit attribute valuation were excluded.

RESULTS

Ten records met eligibility criteria. Eight studies compared preferences for GLP1 RA- profile attributes, one compared GLP1 RA versus insulin glargine profiles, and one addressed both comparisons. Important attributes driving patient preferences in DCEs were dose frequency, type of device, needle size, change in glycated hemoglobin, and adverse-event profile. Time trade-off evaluations demonstrated that weekly GLP1 RA injection-device attributes (reconstitution, waiting during preparation, needle handling) had a measurable impact on preference. Willingness-to-pay analysis showed that patients were more willing to pay extra for attributes of once-daily liraglutide over twice-weekly exenatide or insulin. Direct preference elicitation in DCEs revealed that patients preferred medication profiles representing GLP1 RAs with less frequent dosing and preferred GLP1 RA profiles over insulin.

CONCLUSION

Process and outcome attributes are important drivers of patient preference for GLP1 RAs. Findings from patient-preference studies can inform clinical decision-making and help align care with patient values, which has the potential to improve medication adherence and outcomes.

Quantified patient preferences for lifestyle intervention programs for diabetes prevention-a protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The 20-70% participation of diabetes patients in lifestyle interventions (LSI) worldwide seems to be rather sub-optimal, in spite of all intents of such interventions to delay further progress of the disease. Positive effects through LSI are expected in particular for patients who suffer less from diabetes-related limitations or other chronic diseases. Seeing that diabetes prevalence and with it mortality are increasing, LSI have become an inherent part of diabetes treatment standards. Various qualitative studies have been carried out to identify participation barriers for LSI. However, these have not resulted in more detailed knowledge about the relative importance of factors with an inhibiting impact on participation. Since it cannot be assumed that all of the influencing factors have equivalent values, it is necessary to investigate their individual importance with regard to a positive or negative decision about participating. There are no systematic reviews on patient preferences for LSI programs in diabetes prevention. As a result, the main objectives of this systematic review are to (i) identify existing patient preference elicitation studies related to LSI for diabetic patients, (ii) summarize the methods applied and findings, and (iii) appraise the reporting and methodological quality of such studies.

METHODS

We will perform systematic literature searches to identify suitable studies from 14 electronic databases. Retrieved study records will be included based on predefined eligibility criteria as defined in this protocol. We will run abstract and full-text screenings and then extract data from all selected studies by filling in a predefined data extraction spreadsheet. We will undertake a descriptive, narrative synthesis of findings to address the study objectives, since no pooling for quantified preferences is for methodological reasons implementable. We will pay special attention to aspects of methodological quality of preference elicitation by applying established evaluation criteria of the ISPOR and some own developed criteria for different elicitation techniques. All critical stages within the screening, data extraction, and synthesis processes will be conducted by two pairs of authors. This protocol adheres to PRISMA and PRISMA-P standards.

DISCUSSION

The proposed systematic review will provide an overview of the methods used and current practice in the elicitation and quantification of patients' preferences for diabetes prevention lifestyle interventions. Furthermore, the methodological quality of the identified studies will be appraised as well.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018086988.

A Systematic Review Comparing the Acceptability, Validity and Concordance of Discrete Choice Experiments and Best-Worst Scaling for Eliciting Preferences in Healthcare

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the acceptability, validity and concordance of discrete choice experiment (DCE) and best-worst scaling (BWS) stated preference approaches in health.

METHODS

A systematic search of EMBASE, Medline, AMED, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and EconLit databases was undertaken in October to December 2016 without date restriction. Studies were included if they were published in English, presented empirical data related to the administration or findings of traditional format DCE and object-, profile- or multiprofile-case BWS, and were related to health. Study quality was assessed using the PREFS checklist.

RESULTS

Fourteen articles describing 12 studies were included, comparing DCE with profile-case BWS (9 studies), DCE and multiprofile-case BWS (1 study), and profile- and multiprofile-case BWS (2 studies). Although limited and inconsistent, the balance of evidence suggests that preferences derived from DCE and profile-case BWS may not be concordant, regardless of the decision context. Preferences estimated from DCE and multiprofile-case BWS may be concordant (single study). Profile- and multiprofile-case BWS appear more statistically efficient than DCE, but no evidence is available to suggest they have a greater response efficiency. Little evidence suggests superior validity for one format over another. Participant acceptability may favour DCE, which had a lower self-reported task difficulty and was preferred over profile-case BWS in a priority setting but not necessarily in other decision contexts.

CONCLUSION

DCE and profile-case BWS may be of equal validity but give different preference estimates regardless of the health context; thus, they may be measuring different constructs. Therefore, choice between methods is likely to be based on normative considerations related to coherence with theoretical frameworks and on pragmatic considerations related to ease of data collection.

Contingent Valuation Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Health Economic Review

BACKGROUND

A greater emphasis on providing high-value orthopaedic interventions has resulted in increased health economic reporting. The contingent-valuation method (CVM) is used to determine consumer valuation of the benefits provided by healthcare interventions. CVM is an important value-based health economic tool that is underutilized in orthopaedic surgery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purpose of this study was to (1) identify previously published CVM studies in the orthopaedic literature, (2) assess the methodologies used for CVM research, and (3) understand how CVM has been used in the orthopaedic cost-benefit analysis framework.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE database was performed to compile CVM studies. Search terms incorporated the phrase willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept (WTA) in combination with orthopaedic clinical key terms. Study methodology was appraised using previously defined empirical and conceptual criteria for CVM studies.

RESULTS

Of the 160 studies retrieved, 22 (13.8%) met our inclusion criteria. The economics of joint arthroplasty (n = 6, 27.3%) and non-operative osteoarthritis care (n = 4, 18.2%) were the most common topics. Most studies used CVM for pricing and/or demand forecasting (n = 16, 72.7%); very few studies used CVM for program evaluation (n = 6). WTP was used in all included studies, and one study used both WTP and WTA. Otherwise, there was little consistency among included studies in terms of CVM methodology. Open-ended questioning was used by only ten studies (45.5%), a significant number of studies did not perform a sensitivity analysis (n = 9, 40.9%), and none of the studies accounted for the risk preference of subjects. Only two of the included studies applied CVM within a cost-benefit analysis framework.

CONCLUSION

CVM is not commonly reported in orthopaedic surgery and is seldom used in the context of cost-benefit analysis. There is wide variability in the methods used to perform CVM. We propose that CVM is an appropriate and underappreciated method for understanding the value of orthopaedic interventions. Increased attention should be paid to consumer valuations for orthopaedic interventions.