Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review

Patient Preferences for Treatment in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Leukemia in the United Kingdom: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Background

Acute leukemia is a cancer of the white blood cells which progresses rapidly and aggressively. There are two types: acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The latter has a rare subtype: acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). For some patients, following first-line treatment, remission is not achieved ("refractory disease"), and for others the leukemia returns after achieving remission ("relapse"). For these individuals, outcomes are typically poor. It is, therefore, important to understand patients' treatment priorities in this context.

Methods

Building upon formative qualitative research, an online survey containing a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to explore patients' treatment preferences in the relapsed/refractory setting. The DCE attributes were mode of administration; quality of life during treatment; chance of response; duration of response; and quality of life during response. Each respondent completed twelve scenarios containing two hypothetical treatments. Participants were eligible if they lived in the United Kingdom and had a diagnosis of acute leukemia. The data were analysed using a latent class model.

Results

A total of 95 patients completed the survey. The latent class analysis identified two classes. For both, chance of response was the most important attribute. For class 1, every attribute was important, whereas for class 2, the only important attributes were quality of life (during treatment and response) and chance of response. A greater proportion of respondents would fall into class 1 overall, and those with ALL or APL and those more recently diagnosed were more likely to be in class 2.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that patients are strongly concerned about the chance of response, as well as quality of life (to a lesser extent), when faced with different treatment options in the relapsed/refractory setting. However, there is significant preference heterogeneity within the patient population, and other treatment characteristics also matter to many.

Multidimensional Thresholding for Individual-Level Preference Elicitation

OBJECTIVES

Multiple methods are available for collecting health preference information. However, information on the design and analysis of novel methods is limited. This article aims to provide the first introduction into the design and analysis of multidimensional thresholding (MDT).

METHODS

We introduce MDT as a 2-step approach: First, participants rank the largest possible improvements in all considered attributes by their importance. Second, participants complete a series of systematically combined trade-off questions. Hit-and-Run sampling is used for obtaining preference weights. We also use a computational experiment to compare different MDT designs.

RESULTS

The outlined MDT can generate preference information suitable for specifying a multiattribute utility function at the individual level. The computational experiment demonstrates the method's ability to recover preference weights at a high level of precision. While all designs in the computation experiment perform comparably well on average, the design outlined in the paper stands out with a high level of precision even if differences in relative attribute importance are large.

CONCLUSION

MDT is suitable for preference elicitation, in particular if sample sizes are small. Future research should help improve the methods (e.g., remove the need for an initial ranking) to increase the potential reach of MDT.

Preferences of people with chronic kidney disease regarding digital health interventions that promote healthy lifestyle: qualitative systematic review with meta-ethnography

OBJECTIVES

Diet and physical activity are crucial for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) to maintain good health. Digital health interventions can increase access to lifestyle services. However, consumers' perspectives are unclear, which may reduce the capacity to develop interventions that align with specific needs and preferences. Therefore, this review aims to synthesise the preferences of people with CKD regarding digital health interventions that promote healthy lifestyle.

DESIGN

Qualitative systematic review with meta-ethnography.

DATA SOURCES

Databases Scopus, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched between 2000 and 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Primary research papers that used qualitative exploration methods to explore the preferences of adults with CKD (≥18 years) regarding digital health interventions that promoted diet, physical activity or a combination of these health behaviours.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers screened title, abstract and full text. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Consumers' quotes were extracted verbatim and synthesised into higher-order themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Database search yielded 5761 records. One record was identified following communication with a primary author. 15 papers were included. These papers comprised 197 consumers (mean age 51.0±7.2), including 83 people with CKD 1-5; 61 kidney transplant recipients; 53 people on dialysis. Sex was reported in 182 people, including 53% male. Five themes were generated regarding consumers' preferences for digital lifestyle interventions. These included simple instruction and engaging design; individualised interventions; virtual communities of care; education and action plans; and timely reminders and automated behavioural monitoring.

CONCLUSION

Digital health interventions were considered an important mechanism to access lifestyle services. Consumers' preferences are important to ensure future interventions are tailored to specific needs and goals. Future research may consider applying the conceptual framework of consumers' preferences in this review to develop and evaluate the effect of a digital lifestyle intervention on health outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023411511.

Leveraging patient experience data to guide medicines development, regulation, access decisions and clinical care in the EU

Patient experience data (PED), provided by patients/their carers without interpretation by clinicians, directly capture what matters more to patients on their medical condition, treatment and impact of healthcare. PED can be collected through different methodologies and these need to be robust and validated for its intended use. Medicine regulators are increasingly encouraging stakeholders to generate, collect and submit PED to support both scientific advice in development programs and regulatory decisions on the approval and use of these medicines. This article reviews the existing definitions and types of PED and demonstrate the potential for use in different settings of medicines' life cycle, focusing on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) and Patient Preferences (PP). Furthermore, it addresses some challenges and opportunities, alluding to important regulatory guidance that has been published, methodological aspects and digitalization, highlighting the lack of guidance as a key hurdle to achieve more systematic inclusion of PED in regulatory submissions. In addition, the article discusses opportunities at European and global level that could be implemented to leverage PED use. New digital tools that allow patients to collect PED in real time could also contribute to these advances, but it is equally important not to overlook the challenges they entail. The numerous and relevant initiatives being developed by various stakeholders in this field, including regulators, show their confidence in PED's value and create an ideal moment to address challenges and consolidate PED use across medicines' life cycle.

Putting the Choice in Choice Tasks: Incorporating Preference Elicitation Tasks in Health Preference Research

Choice-based preference elicitation methods such as the discrete choice experiment (DCE) present hypothetical choices to respondents, with an expectation that these hypothetical choices accurately reflect a 'real world' health-related decision context and that consequently the choice data can be held to be a true representation of the respondent's health or treatment preferences. For this to be the case, careful consideration needs to be given to the format of the choice task in a choice experiment. The overarching aim of this paper is to highlight important aspects to consider when designing and 'setting up' the choice tasks to be presented to respondents in a DCE. This includes the importance of considering the potential impact of format (e.g. choice context, choice set presentation and size) as well as choice set content (e.g. labelled and unlabelled choice sets and inclusion of reference alternatives) and choice questions (stated choice versus additional questions designed to explore complete preference orders) on the preference estimates that are elicited from studies. We endeavoure to instil a holistic approach to choice task design that considers format alongside content, experimental design and analysis.

HTA community perspectives on the use of patient preference information: lessons learned from a survey with members of HTA bodies

This research sought to assess whether and how patient preference (PP) data are currently used within health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and affiliated organizations involved in technology/drug appraisals and assessments. An exploratory survey was developed by the PP Project Subcommittee of the HTA International Patient and Citizen Involvement Interest Group to gain insight into the use, impact, and role of PP data in HTA, as well as the perceived barriers to its incorporation. Forty members of HTA bodies and affiliated organizations from twelve countries completed the online survey. PP data were reported to be formally considered as part of the HTA evidence review process by 82.5 percent of the respondents, while 39.4 percent reported that most of the appraisals and assessments within their organization in the past year had submitted PP data. The leading reason for why PP data were not submitted in most assessments was time/resource constraints followed by lack of clarity on PP data impact. Participants reported that PP data had a moderate level of influence on the deliberative process and outcome of the decision, but a higher level of influence on the decision's quality. Most (81.8 percent) felt patient advocacy groups should be primarily responsible for generating and submitting this type of evidence. Insights from the survey confirm the use of PP data in HTA but reveal barriers to its broader and more meaningful integration. Encouragingly, participants believe obstacles can be overcome, paving the way for a second phase of research involving in-depth collaborative workshops with HTA representatives.

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community.

METHODS

Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design.

RESULTS

One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice.

CONCLUSIONS

As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.

Preferences of Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis for Intrathecal Drug Delivery: Choosing between an Implanted Drug-Delivery Device and Therapeutic Lumbar Puncture

BACKGROUND

Novel intrathecal treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may require delivery using lumbar puncture (LP). Implanted drug-delivery devices (IDDDs) could be an alternative but little is known about patients' preferences for intrathecal drug-delivery methods.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to elicit preferences of patients with ALS for routine LP and IDDD use.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) exercise were conducted online among patients with ALS in the US and Europe. In the DCE, patients made trade-offs between administration attributes. Attributes were identified from qualitative interviews. The TT elicited maximum acceptable risks (MARs) of complications from device implantation surgery. DCE data were analyzed using mixed logit to quantify relative attribute importance (RAI) as the maximum contribution of each attribute to a preference, and to estimate MARs of device failure. TT data were analyzed using interval regression. Four scenarios of LP and IDDD were compared.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 295) had a mean age of 57.7 years; most (74.2%) were diagnosed < 3 years ago. Preferences were affected by device failure risk (RAI 28.6%), administration frequency (26.4%), administration risk (19.7%), overall duration (17.8%), and appointment location (7.5%). Patients accepted a 5.6% device failure risk to reduce overall duration from 2 h to 30 min and a 3.6% risk for administration in a local clinic instead of a hospital. The average MAR of complications from implantation surgery was 29%. Patients preferred IDDD over LP in three of four scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Patients considered an IDDD as a valuable alternative to LP in multiple clinical settings.

Examining how well economic evaluations capture the value of mental health

Health economics evidence informs health-care decision making, but the field has historically paid insufficient attention to mental health. Economic evaluations in health should define an appropriate scope for benefits and costs and how to value them. This Health Policy provides an overview of these processes and considers to what extent they capture the value of mental health. We suggest that although current practices are both transparent and justifiable, they have distinct limitations from the perspective of mental health. Most social value judgements, such as the exclusion of interindividual outcomes and intersectoral costs, diminish the value of improving mental health, and this reduction in value might be disproportionate compared with other types of health. Economic analyses might have disadvantaged interventions that improve mental health compared with physical health, but research is required to test the size of such differential effects and any subsequent effect on decision-making systems such as health technology assessment systems. Collaboration between health economics and the mental health sciences is crucial for achieving mental-physical health parity in evaluative frameworks and, ultimately, improving population mental health.

Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE): A New Preference-Elicitation Method for Decision Making in Healthcare

Participatory value evaluation (PVE) has recently been introduced in the field of health as a new method to elicit stated preferences for public policies. PVE is a method in which respondents in a choice experiment are presented with various policy options and their attributes, and are asked to compose their portfolio of preference given a public-resource constraint. This paper aims to illustrate PVE's potential for informing healthcare decision making and to position it relative to established preference-elicitation methods. We first describe PVE and its theoretical background. Next, by means of a narrative review of the eight existing PVE applications within and outside the health domain, we illustrate the different implementations of the main features of the method. We then compare PVE to several established preference-elicitation methods in terms of the structure and nature of the choice tasks presented to respondents. The portfolio-based choice task in a PVE requires respondents to consider a set of policy alternatives in relation to each other and to make trade-offs subject to one or more constraints, which more closely resembles decision making by policymakers. When using a flexible budget constraint, respondents can trade-off their private income with public expenditures. Relative to other methods, a PVE may be cognitively more demanding and is less efficient; however, it seems a promising complementary method for the preference-based assessment of health policies. Further research into the feasibility and validity of the method is required before researchers and policymakers can fully appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of the PVE as a preference-elicitation method.

How to Present a Decision Object in Health Preference Research: Attributes and Levels, the Decision Model, and the Descriptive Framework

In health preference research (HPR) studies, data are generated by participants'/subjects' decisions. When developing an HPR study, it is therefore important to have a clear understanding of the components of a decision and how those components stimulate participant behavior. To obtain valid and reliable results, study designers must sufficiently describe the decision model and its components. HPR studies require a detailed examination of the decision criteria, detailed documentation of the descriptive framework, and specification of hypotheses. The objects that stimulate subjects' decisions in HPR studies are defined by attributes and attribute levels. Any limitations in the identification and presentation of attributes and levels can negatively affect preference elicitation, the quality of the HPR data, and study results. This practical guide shows how to link the HPR question to an underlying decision model. It covers how to (1) construct a descriptive framework that presents relevant characteristics of a decision object and (2) specify the research hypotheses. The paper outlines steps and available methods to achieve all this, including the methods' advantages and limitations.

Accommodating misclassification effects on optimizing dynamic treatment regimes with Q-learning

Research on dynamic treatment regimes has enticed extensive interest. Many methods have been proposed in the literature, which, however, are vulnerable to the presence of misclassification in covariates. In particular, although Q-learning has received considerable attention, its applicability to data with misclassified covariates is unclear. In this article, we investigate how ignoring misclassification in binary covariates can impact the determination of optimal decision rules in randomized treatment settings, and demonstrate its deleterious effects on Q-learning through empirical studies. We present two correction methods to address misclassification effects on Q-learning. Numerical studies reveal that misclassification in covariates induces non-negligible estimation bias and that the correction methods successfully ameliorate bias in parameter estimation.

Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance: A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences

INTRODUCTION

Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences and to determine the relative importance of attributes but can be complex and costly to administer. Simpler methods that measure relative importance exist, such as swing weighting with direct rating (SW-DR), but there is little empirical evidence comparing the two. This study aimed to directly compare attribute relative importance rankings and weights elicited using a DCE and SW-DR.

METHODS

A total of 307 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in Italy and Belgium completed an online survey assessing preferences for cancer treatment using DCE and SW-DR. The relative importance of the attributes was determined using a random parameter logit model for the DCE and rank order centroid method (ROC) for SW-DR. Differences in relative importance ranking and weights between the methods were assessed using Cohen's weighted kappa and Dirichlet regression. Feedback on ease of understanding and answering the 2 tasks was also collected.

RESULTS

Most respondents (>65%) found both tasks (very) easy to understand and answer. The same attribute, survival, was ranked most important irrespective of the methods applied. The overall ranking of the attributes on an aggregate level differed significantly between DCE and SW-ROC (P < 0.01). Greater differences in attribute weights between attributes were reported in DCE compared with SW-DR (P < 0.01). Agreement between the individual-level attribute ranking across methods was moderate (weighted Kappa 0.53-0.55).

CONCLUSION

Significant differences in attribute importance between DCE and SW-DR were found. Respondents reported both methods being relatively easy to understand and answer. Further studies confirming these findings are warranted. Such studies will help to provide accurate guidance for methods selection when studying relative attribute importance across a wide array of preference-relevant decisions.

HIGHLIGHTS

Both DCEs and SW tasks can be used to determine attribute relative importance rankings and weights; however, little evidence exists empirically comparing these methods in terms of outcomes or respondent usability.Most respondents found the DCE and SW tasks very easy or easy to understand and answer.A direct comparison of DCE and SW found significant differences in attribute importance rankings and weights as well as a greater spread in the DCE-derived attribute relative importance weights.

Two Methods, One Story? Comparing Results of a Choice Experiment and Multidimensional Thresholding From a Clinician Preference Study in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of methods are used to elicit health preference information. It is unclear whether different elicitation methods produce similar results and policy advice. Here, we compared the results from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and multidimensional thresholding (MDT) that were conducted in the same sample.

METHODS

Clinicians (N = 350) completed a DCE and MDT to elicit their preferences for 4 attributes related to the medical management of subarachnoid hemorrhage after aneurysm repair. Preference weights were compared between the DCE and MDT using a complete combinatorial convolution test. Additionally, data from the DCE and MDT were used to compute preference-based net treatment values for 16 hypothetical treatment profiles versus 1000 simulated comparators. The implied treatment recommendations were compared between the DCE and MDT.

RESULTS

Preference weight distributions and median weights did not differ significantly between the DCE and MDT for any attribute: likelihood of delayed cerebral ischemia (medians 0.48 vs 0.40; P = .41), risk of lung complications (medians 0.27 vs 0.30; P = .52), risk of hypotension (medians 0.10 vs 0.11; P = .55), and risk of anemia (medians 0.07 vs 0.07; P = .50). The DCE and MDT produced similar treatment net value distributions (P > .05) and implied the same treatment recommendations in 82.3% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The DCE and MDT elicited similar preference distributions and produced the same treatment recommendations for most tested cases. However, the share of people supporting the average treatment recommendation differed. More research is needed to determine how these findings would compare with those in other populations (in particular, patients) and applications.

Eliciting Exploratory Patient Preference Data: A Case Study in a Rare Disease

INTRODUCTION

Qualitative and quantitative methods provide different and complementary insights into patients' preferences for treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to use a novel, mixed-methods approach employing qualitative and quantitative approaches to generate preliminary insights into patient preferences for the treatment of a rare disease-generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG).

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study to collect exploratory qualitative and quantitative patient preference information and generate informative results within a condensed timeline (about 4 months). Recruitment was facilitated by an international health research firm. Study participants first reviewed a brief document describing six treatment attributes (to facilitate more efficient review of the material during the focus groups) and were then provided a link to complete an online quantitative survey with a single risk threshold task. They then participated in online focus groups, during which they discussed qualitative questions about their experience with gMG treatment and completed up to three quantitative threshold tasks, the first of which repeated the threshold task from the online survey.

RESULTS

The study elicited both quantitative data on 18 participants' risk tolerance and qualitative data on their treatment experience, additional treatment attributes of importance, the reasoning behind their preferences, and the trade-offs they were willing to make. Most participants (n = 15) chose the same hypothetical treatment in the first threshold task in the online survey and the focus groups. Focus group discussions provided insights into participants' choices in the threshold tasks, confirmed that all the attributes were relevant, and helped clarify what was important about the attributes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient preference information can be collected using a variety of approaches, both qualitative and quantitative, tailored to fit the research needs of a study. The novel mixed-methods approach employed in this study efficiently captured patient preference data that were informative for exploratory research, internal decision making, and future research.

Preferences for Living Arrangements in Dementia: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

Dementia affects about 55 million people worldwide. Demographic change and shifting lifestyles challenge the organization of dementia care. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit preferences for living arrangements in dementia in urban and rural regions of Germany.

METHODS

Preliminary work included review of previous literature and focus groups. The DCE consists of seven attributes (group size, staff qualifications, organization of care, activities offered, support of religious practice, access to garden, consideration of food preferences) with three levels each. Individuals from the general population between the ages of 50 and 65 years were identified through population registration offices in three rural municipalities and one urban area, and 4390 individuals were approached via postal survey. A hierarchical Bayesian mixed logit model was estimated and interactions with sociodemographic characteristics were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 428 and 412 questionnaires were returned by rural and urban respondents, respectively. Access to a garden was perceived as the most important attribute (average importance 36.0% in the rural sample and 33.4% in the urban sample), followed by consideration of food preferences (15.8%, 17.8%), staff qualification (14.6%, 15.3%), care organization (11.4%, 12.3%), group size (12.2%, 11.1%), and range of activities (8.0%, 10.1%). The attribute relating to religious practice was given the least importance (2.1%, 0%). Preferences vary according to gender, age, religious beliefs, experience as an informal caregiver, and migrant background.

CONCLUSION

Heterogeneous preferences for living arrangements for people with dementia were identified. The expansion of concepts with access to natural environments for persons with dementia might be a viable option for the formal care market in Germany. Further research is needed to meet the challenges of setting up and designing innovative living arrangements for people with dementia. Preferences vary by gender, age, religious beliefs, experience as an informal caregiver, and migrant background.

Public Preferences for Digital Health Data Sharing: Discrete Choice Experiment Study in 12 European Countries

BACKGROUND

With new technologies, health data can be collected in a variety of different clinical, research, and public health contexts, and then can be used for a range of new purposes. Establishing the public's views about digital health data sharing is essential for policy makers to develop effective harmonization initiatives for digital health data governance at the European level.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated public preferences for digital health data sharing.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment survey was administered to a sample of European residents in 12 European countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) from August 2020 to August 2021. Respondents answered whether hypothetical situations of data sharing were acceptable for them. Each hypothetical scenario was defined by 5 attributes ("data collector," "data user," "reason for data use," "information on data sharing and consent," and "availability of review process"), which had 3 to 4 attribute levels each. A latent class model was run across the whole data set and separately for different European regions (Northern, Central, and Southern Europe). Attribute relative importance was calculated for each latent class's pooled and regional data sets.

RESULTS

A total of 5015 completed surveys were analyzed. In general, the most important attribute for respondents was the availability of information and consent during health data sharing. In the latent class model, 4 classes of preference patterns were identified. While respondents in 2 classes strongly expressed their preferences for data sharing with opposing positions, respondents in the other 2 classes preferred not to share their data, but attribute levels of the situation could have had an impact on their preferences. Respondents generally found the following to be the most acceptable: a national authority or academic research project as the data user; being informed and asked to consent; and a review process for data transfer and use, or transfer only. On the other hand, collection of their data by a technological company and data use for commercial communication were the least acceptable. There was preference heterogeneity across Europe and within European regions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed the importance of transparency in data use and oversight of health-related data sharing for European respondents. Regional and intraregional preference heterogeneity for "data collector," "data user," "reason," "type of consent," and "review" calls for governance solutions that would grant data subjects the ability to control their digital health data being shared within different contexts. These results suggest that the use of data without consent will demand weighty and exceptional reasons. An interactive and dynamic informed consent model combined with oversight mechanisms may be a solution for policy initiatives aiming to harmonize health data use across Europe.

A structured methodology for essential medicines lists and health emergency stockpiles: Experience with the Emergency Medicines Buffer Stock in the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

Formularies of essential medicines, such as Essential Medicines Lists (EMLs) and health emergency stockpiles, are intended to be always available, including in emergency situations, acting as important tools for access to medicines. The Emergency Medicines Buffer Stock (EMBS) in the United Kingdom (UK) was a stockpile of critical medicines managed by the UK Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). We propose a new methodology for selecting and including medicines in EMLs and health emergency stockpiles and empirically apply it for selecting medicines in the case of the UK EMBS.

METHODS

We used Multi-Attribute Value Theory and Portfolio Decision Analysis to develop a three-phase methodological framework for medicines selection, involving: (i) the decision context definition and selection of evaluation criteria, (ii) the therapeutic area prioritisation, and (iii) the medicines value-for-money evaluation and product selection. The EMBS application took place in 2018-2019 and focused on therapeutic area prioritisation, involving primary data collection through expert interviews (n = 4), a workshop with DHSC decision-makers (n = 13), and an online survey with National Clinical Directors and relevant experts (n = 24). A Monte Carlo simulation supported therapeutic area prioritisation using the British National Formulary (BNF) classification.

FINDINGS

Two criteria sets were selected for i) therapeutic area prioritisation, reflecting the value concerns of population need and shortage severity, and ii) medicines evaluation, reflecting magnitude of clinical benefit and supply vulnerability, among others. Primary evidence was collected for "national need" and "shortage severity", based on which a "population health loss" index was developed. A total of 51 therapeutic areas were ranked using their index value while assessing the robustness of the ranking. The top ranked therapeutic area was antisecretory drugs and mucosal protectants, closely followed by diabetes drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological application generated a ranking of therapeutic areas based on expected "population health loss" index, while addressing evidence uncertainty. The methodology can be adapted for other EMLs and emergency stockpile contexts to inform medicines selection.

Older adult patient preferences for the content and format of prescription medication labels - A best-worst scaling and discrete choice experiment study

BACKGROUND

Patient preferences for the content and format of prescription medication labels (PMLs, i.e., sticker labels placed on medication bottles/packets at dispensing) have been extensively studied. However, accommodating all preferences on PMLs is impractical due to space limitations. Understanding how patients prioritise the content and format attributes of PMLs can inform improvements while working within PML space constraints.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to (1) identify a ranking of medication-related content attributes to be prioritised on PMLs using best-worst scaling (BWS), and (2) determine the relative importance of format attributes when incorporated onto PMLs using discrete choice experiment (DCE), from the perspective of older adult patients in Singapore.

METHODS

Attributes were informed by our prior qualitative study and PML best practice guidelines. For the BWS component, the assessed content attributes were indication, precautions, interaction or paired medicines, food instructions, side effects, expiry date, and missed dose action, all of which are currently not legally mandated on PMLs in Singapore. A BWS object case was used to rank the content attributes. For the DCE component, in a series of questions, participants were asked to choose between two PML options each time, that varied in the presentation of dosage-frequency instructions, font size, presentation of dosage, presentation of precautions, and font colour of precautions. A mixed logit model estimated the relative utilities of format attribute levels, enabling the calculation of importance scores of the format attributes.

RESULTS

The study recruited 280 participants (mean age: 68.8 ± 5.4 years). The three most-preferred content attributes were indication, precautions and interaction or paired medicines. The top three format preferences were tabular style presentation of dosage-frequency instructions, large font size and precautions in red colour.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare institutions should consider improving their PMLs based on the leading content and format preferences voiced by older adult patients. The methodology adopted in the study can also be used for aligning the content and format of other patient education materials with patient preferences.

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.

Preference of acromegaly patients for treatment attributes in Spain

OBJECTIVE

Acromegaly is a rare disease caused by increased growth hormone secretion and a subsequent increase in insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) levels. Patients display multiple comorbidities that affect their quality of life (QoL). Treatment aims to maintain good biochemical control, tumour control and reduce the risk of comorbidities; however, their impact on QoL has been overlooked until recently. We interviewed patients to explore their preferences with regard to treatment attributes.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study based on interviews and a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in a Spanish cohort.

METHODS

Adult patients diagnosed with acromegaly ≥1 year before the start of the study and under treatment were included. Treatment attributes were collected from patient testimony during face-to-face interviews. Then, a DCE was performed to elicit patient preferences for certain treatment attributes.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients completed the study. QoL improvement was the most important treatment attribute (37%), followed by IGF-I control (20%), blood sugar control (17%) and tumour control (13%). Secondary attributes were pain associated with the route of administration (7%), diarrhoea (2%), administration method (2%) and storage conditions (2%). We then calculated the theoretical share of preference for existing treatments, based on the individual preference utility for each attribute and level. Pegvisomant obtained the highest share of preference overall, and the highest preference as a second-line treatment (53 and 95%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

QoL greatly influences patient treatment preference. Since acromegaly patients are informed and aware of their disease, treatment choices should always be shared with patients.

Eliciting preferences for cancer screening tests: Comparison of a discrete choice experiment and the threshold technique

OBJECTIVE

To compare results of three preference elicitation methods for a cancer screening test.

METHODS

Participants (undergraduate students) completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a threshold technique (TT) task. Accuracy (false positives, false negatives), benefits (lives saved), and cost for a cancer screening test were used as attributes in the DCE and branching logic for the TT. Participants were also asked a direct elicitation question regarding a hypothetical screening test for breast (women) or prostate (men) cancer without mortality benefit. Correlations assessed the relationship between DCE and TT thresholds. Thresholds were standardized and ranked for both methods to compare. A logistic regression used the thresholds to predict results of the direct elicitation.

RESULTS

DCE and TT estimates were not meaningfully correlated (max ρ = 0.17). Participant rankings of attributes matched only 20% of the time (58/292). Neither method predicted preference for being screened (ps > 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

The DCE and TT yielded different preference estimates (and rank orderings) for the same participant. Neither method predicted patients' desires for a screening test.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians, patients, policy makers, and researchers should be aware that patient preference results may be sensitive to the method of eliciting preferences.

Stakeholder perspectives on interventions to improve HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake and continuation in Lesotho: A participant-ranked preferences study

Low uptake and high discontinuation remain major obstacles to realizing the potential of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) in changing the trajectory of the HIV epidemic. We conducted a card sorting and ranking exercise with 155 local stakeholders to determine their views on the most important barriers and most promising interventions to achieving high PrEP coverage. Stakeholders were a purposive sample of PrEP policymakers and implementing partners (n = 7), healthcare providers (n = 51), and end-users (n = 97). End-users included adults who were currently using PrEP (n = 55), formerly using PrEP (n = 36), and those who were offered PrEP but declined (n = 6). Participants sorted pre-selected interventions and barriers to PrEP coverage into three piles-most, somewhat, and least important. Participants then ranked interventions and barriers in the "most important" piles in ascending order of significance. Ranked preferences were analyzed as voting data to identify the smallest set of candidates for which each candidate in the set would win in a two-candidate election against any candidate outside the set. Participants viewed a lack of PrEP awareness as the most important barrier to PrEP uptake for women, and a fear of HIV testing for men. Community-based HIV testing was ranked as the most promising intervention to improve PrEP uptake for both men and women. Perceived or experienced stigma was seen as an important barrier for PrEP continuation for both men and women, with an additional important barrier for men being daily activities that compete with the time needed to take a daily pill. Adherence counseling and multi-month PrEP prescriptions were seen as the most promising interventions to improve PrEP continuation. Our findings suggest community-based activities that generate PrEP demand (community-based HIV testing and mass media campaigns), reinforced with facility-based follow-up (counseling and multi-month prescription) could be promising interventions for PrEP programs that are aimed at the general adult population.

Preferences in the Design and Delivery of Neurodevelopmental Follow-Up Care for Children: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

Neurodevelopmental disorders are a significant cause of morbidity. Early detection of neurodevelopmental delay is essential for timely diagnosis and intervention, and it is therefore important to understand the preferences of parents and clinicians for engaging with neurodevelopmental surveillance and follow-up care. Discrete choice experiment (DCE) may be an appropriate method for quantifying these preferences. This review systematically examined how DCEs have been designed and delivered in studies examining neurodevelopmental care of children and identified the preferred attributes that have been reported. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus databases were systematically searched. Studies were included if they used DCE to elicit preferences for a neurodevelopmental follow-up program for children. Two independent reviewers conducted the title and abstract and full-text screening. Risk of bias was assessed using a DCE-specific checklist. Findings were presented using a narrative synthesis. A total of 6618 records were identified and 16 papers were included. Orthogonal (n=5) and efficient (n=5) experimental designs were common. There was inconsistent reporting of design-related features. Analysis was primarily completed using mixed logit (n=6) or multinomial logit (n=3) models. Several key attributes for neurodevelopmental follow-up care were identified including social, behavioral and emotional support, therapy, waiting time, and out-of-pocket costs. DCE has been successfully used as a preference elicitation method for neurodevelopmental-related care. There is scope for improvement in the design and analysis of DCE in this field. Nonetheless, attributes identified in these studies are likely to be important considerations in the design and implementation of programs for neurodevelopmental care.

How Can We Understand Patients' Values, Preferences, and Expectations in Urology?

Understanding patients' values and preferences is essential for patient-centred care. Qualitative research provides a broader understanding from a patient perspective at different time points across the patient's life. Quantitative methods quantify specific preferences and answer specific questions that have been informed by qualitative work.

How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making. Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022. Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions. Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.

Adaptation of the WOMAC for Use in a Patient Preference Study

OBJECTIVES

To adapt a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure, the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), into efficacy attributes for a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey designed to quantify the relative importance of endpoints commonly used in knee osteoarthritis (KOA) trials.

METHODS

The adaptation comprised four steps: (1) selecting domains of interest; (2) determining presentation and framing of selected attributes; (3) determining attribute levels; and (4) developing choice tasks. This process involved input from multiple stakeholders, including regulators, health preference researchers, and patients. Pretesting was conducted to evaluate if patients comprehended the adapted survey attributes and could make trade-offs among them.

RESULTS

The WOMAC pain and function domains were selected for adaption to two efficacy attributes. Two versions of the discrete choice experiment (DCE) instrument were created to compare efficacy using (1) total domain scores and (2) item scores for "walking on a flat surface." Both attributes were presented as improvement from baseline scores by levels of 0%, 30%, 50%, and 100%. Twenty-six participants were interviewed in a pretest of the instrument (average age 60 years; 58% female; 62% had KOA for ≥ 5 years). The participants found both versions of attributes meaningful and relevant for treatment decision-making. They demonstrated willingness and ability to tradeoff improvements in pain and function separately, though many perceived them as inter-related.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds to the growing literature regarding adapting PRO measures for patient preference studies. Such adaptation is important for designing a preference study that can incorporate a clinical trial's outcomes with PRO endpoints.

A mixed methods study on men's and women's tuberculosis care journeys in Lusaka, Zambia-Implications for gender-tailored tuberculosis health promotion and case finding strategies

Men and women with undiagnosed tuberculosis (TB) in high burden countries may have differential factors influencing their healthcare seeking behaviors and access to TB services, which can result in delayed diagnoses and increase TB-related morbidity and mortality. A convergent, parallel, mixed-methods study design was used to explore and evaluate TB care engagement among adults (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed, microbiologically-confirmed TB attending three public health facilities in Lusaka, Zambia. Quantitative structured surveys characterized the TB care pathway (time to initial care-seeking, diagnosis, and treatment initiation) and collected information on factors influencing care engagement. Multinomial multivariable logistic regression was used to determine predicted probabilities of TB health-seeking behaviors and determinants of care engagement. Qualitative in-depth interviews (IDIs; n = 20) were conducted and analyzed using a hybrid approach to identify barriers and facilitators to TB care engagement by gender. Overall, 400 TB patients completed a structured survey, of which 275 (68.8%) and 125 (31.3%) were men and women, respectively. Men were more likely to be unmarried (39.3% and 27.2%), have a higher median daily income (50 and 30 Zambian Kwacha [ZMW]), alcohol use disorder (70.9% [AUDIT-C score ≥4] and 31.2% [AUDIT-C score ≥3]), and a history of smoking (63.3% and 8.8%), while women were more likely to be religious (96.8% and 70.8%) and living with HIV (70.4% and 36.0%). After adjusting for potential confounders, the probability of delayed health-seeking ≥4 weeks after symptom onset did not differ significantly by gender (44.0% and 36.2%, p = 0.14). While the top reasons for delayed healthcare-seeking were largely similar by gender, men were more likely to report initially perceiving their symptoms as not being serious (94.8% and 78.7%, p = 0.032), while women were more likely to report not knowing the symptoms of TB before their diagnosis (89.5% and 74.4%; p = 0.007) and having a prior bad healthcare experience (26.4% and 9.9%; p = 0.036). Notably, women had a higher probability of receiving TB diagnosis ≥2 weeks after initial healthcare seeking (56.5% and 41.0%, p = 0.007). While men and women reported similar acceptability of health-information sources, they emphasized different trusted messengers. Also, men had a higher adjusted probability of stating that no one influenced their health-related decision making (37.9% and 28.3%, p = 0.001). In IDIs, men recommended TB testing sites at convenient community locations, while women endorsed an incentivized, peer-based, case-finding approach. Sensitization and TB testing strategies at bars and churches were highlighted as promising approaches to reach men and women, respectively. This mixed-methods study found important differences between men and women with TB in Zambia. These differences suggest the need for gender-tailored TB health promotion, including addressing harmful alcohol use and smoking among men, and sensitizing HCWs to prolonged delays in TB diagnosis among women, and also using gender-specific approaches as part of community-based, active case-finding strategies to improve TB diagnosis in high burden settings.

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Background

Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

Objective

To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups.

Design setting and participants

We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses.

Results and limitations

Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (p = 0.004), with substantial preference heterogeneity between individuals within the two samples (both p < 0.001). There was no evidence of differences in preferences for men aged 45-65 yr versus ≥65 yr, patients with mPC in different disease stages or with different adverse effect experiences, or general population participants with and without experiences with cancer. Latent class analyses suggested the presence of two groups strongly preferring either survival or the absence of adverse effects, with no specific characteristic clearly associated with belonging to either group. Potential biases due to participant selection, cognitive burden, and hypothetical choice scenarios may limit the study results.

Conclusions

Given the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC.

Patient summary

We examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment in Medical Product Decision Making: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force

Benefit-risk assessment is commonly conducted by drug and medical device developers and regulators, to evaluate and communicate issues around benefit-risk balance of medical products. Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a set of techniques that incorporate explicit outcome weighting within a formal analysis to evaluate the benefit-risk balance. This report describes emerging good practices for the 5 main steps of developing qBRAs based on the multicriteria decision analysis process. First, research question formulation needs to identify the needs of decision makers and requirements for preference data and specify the role of external experts. Second, the formal analysis model should be developed by selecting benefit and safety endpoints while eliminating double counting and considering attribute value dependence. Third, preference elicitation method needs to be chosen, attributes framed appropriately within the elicitation instrument, and quality of the data should be evaluated. Fourth, analysis may need to normalize the preference weights, base-case and sensitivity analyses should be conducted, and the effect of preference heterogeneity analyzed. Finally, results should be communicated efficiently to decision makers and other stakeholders. In addition to detailed recommendations, we provide a checklist for reporting qBRAs developed through a Delphi process conducted with 34 experts.

Suitability of Preference Methods Across the Medical Product Lifecycle: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to understand the importance of criteria describing methods (eg, duration, costs, validity, and outcomes) according to decision makers for each decision point in the medical product lifecycle (MPLC) and to determine the suitability of a discrete choice experiment, swing weighting, probabilistic threshold technique, and best-worst scale cases 1 and 2 at each decision point in the MPLC.

METHODS

Applying multicriteria decision analysis, an online survey was sent to MPLC decision makers (ie, industry, regulatory, and health technology assessment representatives). They ranked and weighted 19 methods criteria from an existing performance matrix about their respective decisions across the MPLC. All criteria were given a relative weight based on the ranking and rating in the survey after which an overall suitability score was calculated for each preference elicitation method per decision point. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to reflect uncertainty in the performance matrix.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine industry, 29 regulatory, and 5 health technology assessment representatives completed the surveys. Overall, "estimating trade-offs between treatment characteristics" and "estimating weights for treatment characteristics" were highly important criteria throughout all MPLC decision points, whereas other criteria were most important only for specific MPLC stages. Swing weighting and probabilistic threshold technique received significantly higher suitability scores across decision points than other methods. Sensitivity analyses showed substantial impact of uncertainty in the performance matrix.

CONCLUSION

Although discrete choice experiment is the most applied preference elicitation method, other methods should also be considered to address the needs of decision makers. Development of evidence-based guidance documents for designing, conducting, and analyzing such methods could enhance their use.

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.

Bringing the patient's perspectives forward in drug development and health-care evaluation

INTRODUCTION

For many years, psychologists and other social scientists have been pushing for the individual patient's perspective - priorities, needs, feelings, and functioning - to be incorporated into drug development. This is usually achieved through the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials.

AREAS COVERED

This paper discusses some key issues in the use of PROM data as the sole method of generating information about the patient's perspective and outlines the relevance of narrative evidence to enhance understanding and interpretation of PROM data.

EXPERT OPINION

The development and use of PROMs situates them at the vertex of two very different trends in medicine: patient-centered care and standardization. Indeed, the application of PROMs - which pull in the direction of standardization - results in a narrow conception of evidence by overriding the subjectivity of individual experiences, beliefs, and judgments. Without additional context, PROM data cannot easily support individual patient-level care. When collected systematically and with an interpretive phenomenological approach, narrative data can contain valuable information about the patient experience that numerical ratings from PRO measures do not capture.

Use of Stated Preference Methods in HIV Treatment and Prevention Research in the United States: A Systematic Review

Stated preference (SP) methods are increasingly being applied to HIV-related research and continuously provide researchers with health utility scores of select healthcare products or services that populations consider important. Following PRISMA guidelines, we sought to understand how SP methods have been applied in HIV-related research. We conducted a systematic review to identify studies meeting the following criteria: SP method is clearly stated, conducted in the United States, was published between 01/01/2012 and 02/12/2022, and included adults aged 18 and over. Study design and SP method application were also examined. We identified six SP methods (e.g., Conjoint Analysis, Discrete Choice Experiment) across 18 studies, which were categorized into one of two groups: HIV prevention and HIV treatment-care. Categories of attributes used in SP methods largely focused on: administration, physical/health effects, financial, location, access, and external influences. SP methods are innovative tools capable of informing researchers on what populations consider most beneficial when deciding on treatment, care, or prevention options for HIV.

Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling: An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Case 2 best-worst scaling (BWS-2) is an increasingly popular method to elicit patient preferences. Because BWS-2 potentially has a lower cognitive burden compared with discrete choice experiments, the aim of this study was to compare treatment preference weights and relative importance scores.

METHODS

Patients with neuromuscular diseases completed an online survey at two different moments in time, completing one method per occasion. Patients were randomly assigned to either first a discrete choice experiment or BWS-2. Attributes included: muscle strength, energy endurance, balance, cognition, chance of blurry vision, and chance of liver damage. Multinomial logit was used to calculate overall relative importance scores and latent class logit was used to estimate heterogeneous preference weights and to calculate the relative importance scores of the attributes for each latent class.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were included for analyses. Overall relative importance scores showed differences in attribute importance rankings between a discrete choice experiment and BWS-2. Latent class analyses indicated three latent classes for both methods, with a specific class in both the discrete choice experiment and BWS-2 in which (avoiding) liver damage was the most important attribute. Ex-post analyses showed that classes differed in sex, age, level of education, and disease status. The discrete choice experiment was easier to understand compared with BWS-2.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that using a discrete choice experiment and BWS-2 leads to different outcomes, both in preference weights as well as in relative importance scores, which might have been caused by the different framing of risks in BWS-2. However, a latent class analysis revealed similar latent classes between methods. Careful consideration about method selection is required, while keeping the specific decision context in mind and pilot testing the methods.

Health state utilities for beta-thalassemia: a time trade-off study

BACKGROUND

Beta-thalassemia (BT) is an inherited blood disorder characterized by reduced levels of functional hemoglobin resulting in phenotypes ranging from clinically asymptomatic to severely anemic. Patients with BT may require lifelong regular blood transfusions supported by appropriate iron chelation therapy (ICT). This study aimed to determine how the UK general population values BT health states associated with differing transfusion burden and ICT.

METHODS

Composite time trade-off (cTTO) methodology was employed to elicit health state utilities in BT. Relevant BT literature related to symptom and quality-of-life impact, including physical, functional, and emotional well-being, and safety profiles of BT treatments were considered when drafting health state descriptions. Eleven health state descriptions were developed and validated by hematologists and patient advocates for clinical accuracy and completeness. 200 individuals from the UK general population participated in the cTTO interviews.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants was 41.50 years (SD 16.01, range 18-81); 88 (46.8%) were female. Utility values ranged from 0.78 (SD 0.34) for non-transfusion dependent BT with oral ICT to 0.37 (SD 0.50) for high transfusion burden with subcutaneous ICT in transfusion-dependent BT.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides health utilities for a range of BT health states from the UK general population perspective. Importantly, lower transfusion burden and lower burden of anemia were associated with higher utilities. To a lesser extent, differential modes of ICT were found to impact utility valuations in patients with BT. The utilities obtained in this study can be employed as inputs in cost-effectiveness analyses of BT therapies.

Comparison of Literature Review, Social Media Listening, and Qualitative Interview Research Methods in Generating Patient-Reported Symptom and Functional Impact Concepts of Presbyopia

INTRODUCTION

To compare the insights obtained about the experience of individuals with presbyopia (age-related impaired near vision) across three different sources of qualitative data: a structured targeted literature review, a social media listening (SML) review, and qualitative concept elicitation (CE) interviews with individuals with presbyopia and healthcare professionals (HCPs). The number of concepts identified, depth of data, cost and time implications, and value of the patient insights generated were explored and compared for each method.

METHODS

Keyword searches in bibliographic databases and review of abstracts identified 120 relevant publications; in-depth targeted literature review of the qualitative studies identified key symptoms/functioning concepts. SML was conducted using publicly accessible social media sources with focus on ophthalmologic diseases using a pre-defined search string. Relevant posts from individuals with presbyopia (n = 270) were analysed and key concepts identified. Semi-structured CE interviews were conducted with individuals with presbyopia (US n = 30, Germany n = 10, France n = 10), and HCPs (US = 3, France n = 2, Germany n = 1, Japan n = 1) who were experienced in treating presbyopia. Verbatim transcripts were coded using thematic analysis. A conceptual model summarised concepts identified across sources RESULTS: Out of the total of 158 concepts identified across the three sources, qualitative CE interviews yielded the highest number of concepts (n = 151/158, 96%), with SML yielding a third of the concepts (n = 51/158, 32%) and the literature review yielding the fewest concepts (n = 33/158, 21%). Qualitative CE interviews provided greater depth of data than SML and literature reviews. SML and literature reviews were less costly and quicker to run than qualitative CE interviews and also were less burdensome for participants.

CONCLUSION

Qualitative CE interviews are considered the gold standard in providing greater depth of understanding of the patient experience, and more robust data. However, research requirements, budget, and available time should be considered when choosing the most appropriate research method. More time and cost-effective SML and literature review methods can be used to supplement qualitative CE interview data and provide early identification of measurement concepts. More research and regulatory guidance into less traditional qualitative methods, however, are needed to increase the value of SML and literature review data.

A Roadmap for Increasing the Usefulness and Impact of Patient-Preference Studies in Decision Making in Health: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force

Many qualitative and quantitative methods are readily available to study patient preferences in health. These methods are now being used to inform a wide variety of decisions, and there is a growing body of evidence showing studies of patient preferences can be used for decision making in a wide variety of contexts. This ISPOR Task Force report synthesizes current good practices for increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We provide the ISPOR Roadmap for Patient Preferences in Decision Making that invites patient-preference researchers to work with decision makers, patients and patient groups, and other stakeholders to ensure that studies are useful and impactful. The ISPOR Roadmap consists of 5 key elements: (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) population, (4) method, and (5) impact. In this report, we define these 5 elements and provide good practices on how patient-preference researchers and others can actively contribute to increasing the usefulness and impact of patient-preference studies in decision making. We also present a set of key questions that can support researchers and other stakeholders (eg, funders, reviewers, readers) to assess efforts that promote the ongoing impact (both intended and unintended) of a particular preference study and additional studies in the future.

The Impact of Video-Based Educational Materials with Voiceovers on Preferences for Glucose Monitoring Technology in Patients with Diabetes: A Randomised Study

INTRODUCTION

Ensuring patients have enough information about healthcare choices prior to completing a preference study is necessary to support the validity of the findings. Patients are commonly informed using text-based information with supporting graphics. Video-based information may be more engaging for the general patient population. This study aimed to assess (1) the impact that educating patients using video-based educational materials with a voiceover has on patient preferences compared to traditional text, and (2) whether this impact is consistent between two countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A video-based educational tool was developed to inform patients prior to completing a discrete choice experiment assessing preferences for glucose monitors. Patients with diabetes from the Netherlands and Poland were recruited through an online research panel. Respondents were randomised to receive information in either a text or a video with animations and a voiceover. Data were analysed using a mixed-logit model.

RESULTS

N = 981 completed surveys were analysed from the Netherlands (n = 459) and Poland (n = 522). Differences were found between the countries, but no interpretable pattern of differences was found between the two types of educational materials. Patients spent less time in the educational material than would be necessary to fully review all of the content.

CONCLUSIONS

Simply providing educational material in a video with animations and voiceovers does not necessarily lead to better engagement from respondents or different preference outcomes in a sample of diabetes patients when compared to text. Increasing engagement with educational materials should be a topic of future research for those conducting patient preference research as no amount of educational material will be helpful if respondents do not access it.

A world of choices: preference elicitation methods for improving the delivery and uptake of HIV prevention and treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the growing availability of effective HIV prevention and treatment interventions, there are large gaps in their uptake and sustained use across settings. It is crucial to elicit and apply patients' and stakeholders' preferences to maximize the impact of existing and future interventions. This review summarizes quantitative preference elicitation methods (PEM) and how they can be applied to improve the delivery and uptake of HIV prevention and treatment interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

PEM are increasingly applied in HIV implementation research; however, discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have predominated. Beyond DCEs, there are other underutilized PEM that may improve the reach and effectiveness of HIV prevention and treatment interventions among individuals by prioritizing their barriers to engagement and determining which attributes of interventions and delivery strategies are most valued. PEM can also enhance the adoption and sustained implementation of strategies to deliver HIV prevention and treatment interventions by assessing which attributes are the most acceptable and appropriate to key stakeholders.

SUMMARY

Greater attention to and incorporation of patient's and stakeholders' preferences for HIV prevention and treatment interventions and their delivery has the potential to increase the number of persons accessing and retained in HIV prevention and treatment services.

A simulated maximum likelihood procedure for analyzing imprecise trade-off thresholds between the benefits and harms of medicines

Stated preference studies in which information on the willingness to trade-off between the benefits and harms of medicines is elicited from patients or other stakeholders are becoming increasingly mainstream. Such trade-offs can mathematically be represented by a weighted additive function, with the weights, whose ratios determine how much an individual is willing to trade-off between the treatment attributes, being the response vector for the statistical analysis. One way of eliciting trade-off information is through multi-dimensional thresholding (MDT), which is a bisection-based approach that results in increasingly tight bounds on the values of the weights ratios. While MDT is cognitively less demanding than other, more direct elicitation methods, its use complicates the statistical analysis as it results in weights data that are region censored. In this article, we present a simulated maximum likelihood (SML) procedure for fitting a Dirichlet population model directly to the region-censored weights data and perform a series of computational experiments to compare the proposed SML procedure to a naive approach in which a Dirichlet distribution is fitted to the centroids of the weights boundaries obtained with MDT. The results indicate that the SML procedure consistently outperformed the centroid-based approach, with the centroid-based approach requiring three bisection steps per trade-off to achieve a similar precision as the SML procedure with one bisection step per trade-off. Using the newly proposed SML procedure, MDT can be applied with smaller sample sizes or with fewer questions compared to the more naïve centroid-based approach that was applied in previous applications of MDT.

Single-incision mini-slings versus standard synthetic mid-urethral slings for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: The SIMS RCT

BACKGROUND

Stress urinary incontinence is the most common type of urinary incontinence in premenopausal women. Until recently, synthetic mid-urethral slings (mesh/tape) were the standard surgical treatment, if conservative management failed. Adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings are newer, use less mesh and may reduce perioperative morbidity, but it is unclear how their success rates and safety compare with those of standard tension-free mid-urethral slings.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare tension-free standard mid-urethral slings with adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings among women with stress urinary incontinence requiring surgical intervention, in terms of patient-reported effectiveness, health-related quality of life, safety and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio).

SETTING

The trial was set in 21 UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were women aged ≥ 18 years with predominant stress urinary incontinence, undergoing a mid-urethral sling procedure.

INTERVENTIONS

Single-incision mini-slings, compared with standard mid-urethral slings.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was patient-reported success rates on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale at 15 months post randomisation (≈ 1 year post surgery), with success defined as outcomes of 'very much improved' or 'much improved'. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, impact on other urinary symptoms, quality of life and sexual function.

RESULTS

A total of 600 participants were randomised. At 15 months post randomisation, adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings were non-inferior to tension-free standard mid-urethral slings at the 10% margin for the primary outcome [single-incision mini-sling 79% (212/268) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 76% (189/250), risk difference 4.6, 95% confidence interval -2.7 to 11.8; p _{non-inferiority} < 0.001]. Similarly, at 3 years' follow-up, patient-reported success rates in the single-incision mini-sling group were non-inferior to those of the standard mid-urethral sling group at the 10% margin [single-incision mini-sling 72% (177/246) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 67% (157/235), risk difference 5.7, 95% confidence interval -1.3 to 12.8; p _{non-inferiority} < 0.001]. Tape/mesh exposure rates were higher for single-incision mini-sling participants, with 3.3% (9/276) [compared with 1.9% (5/261) in the standard mid-urethral sling group] reporting tape exposure over the 3 years of follow-up. The rate of groin/thigh pain was slightly higher in the single-incision mini-sling group at 15 months [single-incision mini-sling 15% (41/276) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 12% (31/261), risk difference 3.0%, 95% confidence interval -1.1% to 7.1%]; however, by 3 years, the rate of pain was slightly higher among the standard mid-urethral sling participants [single-incision mini-sling 14% (39/276) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 15% (39/261), risk difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval -4.1 to 2.5]. At the 3-year follow-up, quality of life and sexual function outcomes were similar in both groups: for the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life, the mean difference in scores was -1.1 (95% confidence interval -3.1 to 0.8; p = 0.24), and for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, International Urogynecological Association-Revised, it was 0 (95% confidence interval -0.1, 0.1; p = 0.92). However, more women in the single-incision mini-sling group reported dyspareunia [12% (17/145), compared with 4.8% (7/145) in the standard mid-urethral sling group, risk difference 7.0%, 95% confidence interval 1.9% to 12.1%]. The base-case economics results showed no difference in costs (-£6, 95% confidence interval -£228 to £208) or quality-adjusted life-years (0.005, 95% confidence interval -0.068 to 0.073) between the groups. There is a 56% probability that single-incision mini-slings will be considered cost-effective at the £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold value for a quality-adjusted life-year.

LIMITATIONS

Follow-up data beyond 3 years post randomisation are not available to inform longer-term safety and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision mini-slings were non-inferior to standard mid-urethral slings in patient-reported success rates at up to 3 years' follow-up.

FUTURE WORK

Success rates, adverse events, retreatment rates, symptoms, and quality-of-life scores at 10 years' follow-up will help inform long-term effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered as ISRCTN93264234.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Travelers' preferences for tick-borne encephalitis vaccination

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to quantify preferences and risk tolerance for a tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) vaccination.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A stated-preference survey instrument was administered to international travelers living in the United States to elicit preferences for a no-cost TBE vaccine when planning an international trip, conditional upon four different qualitative levels of endemic TBE risk.

RESULTS

The likelihood of choosing the vaccine increased with a destination's level of endemic risk. Most respondents (94%) would choose to receive the vaccine at the highest risk level presented in the survey (i.e. when multiple TBE cases among humans are reported year after year); 6% of the sample would choose not to receive the vaccine at any risk level. Respondents who engage in outdoor activities were twice as likely as the average respondent to choose vaccination rather than opting out of vaccination, and were one-third more likely than the average respondent to choose to receive the vaccine at the lowest risk level.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents were highly interested in a TBE vaccine, assuming no cost, and most were willing to be vaccinated at all qualitative TBE risk levels. Respondents who participated in outdoor activities were more likely than the average respondent to choose the vaccine.

Building Infrastructure to Exploit Evidence from Patient Preference Information (PPI) Studies: A Conceptual Blueprint

Patients are the most important actors in clinical research. Therefore, patient preference information (PPI) could support the decision-making process, being indisputable for research value, quality, and integrity. However, there is a lack of clear guidance or consensus on the search for preference studies. In this blueprint, an openly available and regularly updated patient preference management system for an integrated database (PPMSDB) that contains the minimal set of data sufficient to provide detailed information for each study (the so-called evidence tables in systematic reviews) and a high-level overview of the findings of a review (summary tables) is described. These tables could help determine which studies, if any, are eligible for quantitative synthesis. Finally, a web platform would provide a graphical and user-friendly interface. On the other hand, a set of APIs (application programming interfaces) would also be developed and provided. The PPMSDB, aims to collect preference measures, characteristics, and meta-data, and allow researchers to obtain a quick overview of a research field, use the latest evidence, and identify research gaps. In conjunction with proper statistical analysis of quantitative preference measures, these aspects can facilitate formal evidence-based decisions and adequate consideration when conducting a structured decision-making process. Our objective is to outline the conceptual infrastructure necessary to build and maintain a successful network that can monitor the currentness and validity of evidence.

Preference Testing in Medical Devices: Current Framework and Regulatory Gaps

Preference testing is a valuable source of information that can be provided by both healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients (users). It can be used to improve the design and development of medical devices by feeding into device usability and, ultimately, risk management. Furthermore, it can aid with selecting the most appropriate clinical endpoints to be used in the clinical evaluation of a device and increase patient engagement by incorporating patient-relevant outcomes. Preference testing is widely conducted in the food industry but is not widespread in the medical field due to limited guidelines and a lack of regulatory framework. As such, manufacturers may be unaware of the benefits of preference testing and fail to take full advantage of it, or conversely, may use inappropriate methodology and/or analyses and consequently fail to collect meaningful data. In this position paper, we aim to highlight the benefits and uses of preference testing, along with potential methods that could be used for preference testing of medical devices. A key step towards the wider implementation of preference testing in medical devices is for the publication of international standards and guidelines for the collection, assessment, and implementation of preference data into the life cycle of a medical device.

Exploring patient preference heterogeneity for pharmacological treatments for chronic pain: A latent class analysis

BACKGROUND

Several pharmaceutical treatments for chronic pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) and chronic low back pain (CLBP) are available or currently under development, each associated with different adverse events (AEs) and efficacy profiles. It is therefore important to understand what trade-offs patients are willing to make when choosing between treatments.

METHODS

A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was conducted with 437 adults with chronic pain caused by OA and/or CLBP. Respondents were presented with a series of scenarios and asked to choose between pairs of hypothetical treatments, each defined by six attributes: level of symptom control; risks of heart attack, rapidly progressive osteoarthritis and dependency; frequency and mode of administration and cost. Attributes were based on known profiles of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids and injected nerve growth factor inhibitors, the last of which were under clinical development at the time of the study. Data were analysed using a latent class (LC) model to explore preference heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Overall, respondents considered improving symptom control and reducing risk of physical dependency to be the most important attributes. The LC analysis identified four participant classes: an 'efficacy-focused' class (33.7%), a 'cost-averse' class (29.4%), a 'physical-dependence-averse' class (19.6%) and a 'needle-averse' class (17.3%). Subgroup membership was incompletely predicted by participant age and their responses to comprehension questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Preference heterogeneity across respondents indicates a need for a personalized approach to offering treatment options. Symptom improvement, cost, physical dependence and route of administration might be important to different patients.

SIGNIFICANCE

Multiple treatment options that differ substantially in terms of efficacy and adverse events are available for the management of chronic pain. With a growing emphasis on a patient-centred care model that incorporates patients' priorities and values into treatment decisions, there is a need to understand how individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain balance the benefits and risks of treatment and how treatment priorities vary among individuals. This study was designed to identify patient preferences for different characteristics of treatments for the management of chronic pain and to investigate how preferences differ among respondents.

Patient-centred consent in women's health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care?

Background

Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ views and experiences of the consent process in antenatal and intrapartum care.

Methods

Qualitative research performed in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Fifteen healthcare professionals (obstetricians and midwives) participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data were collectively analysed to identify themes in the experiences of the consent process.

Results

Three themes were identified: (1) Shared decision-making and shared responsibility –engaging women in dialogue is often difficult and, even when achieved, women are not always able or do not wish to share responsibility for decisions (2) Second-guessing women – assessing what is important to a woman is inherently difficult so healthcare professionals sometimes feel forced to anticipate a woman’s views (3) Challenging professional contexts – healthcare professionals are disquieted by consent practice in the Labour ward setting which is often at odds with legal and professional guidance.

Conclusions

Results suggest that there is a mismatch between what is required of healthcare professionals to effect an antenatal or intrapartum consent process concordant with current legal and professional guidance and what can be achieved in practice. If consent, as currently articulated, is to remain the barometer for current practice, healthcare professionals need more support in ways of enabling women to make decisions which healthcare professionals feel confident are autonomous whatever the circumstances of the consultation.

Conjoint Analysis: A Research Method to Study Patients’ Preferences and Personalize Care

This article aims to describe the conjoint analysis (CA) method and its application in healthcare settings, and to provide researchers with a brief guide to conduct a conjoint study. CA is a method for eliciting patients’ preferences that offers choices similar to those in the real world and allows researchers to quantify these preferences. To identify literature related to conjoint analysis, a comprehensive search of PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted without language or date restrictions. To identify the trend of publications and citations in conjoint analysis, an online search of all databases indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection was conducted on the 8th of December 2021 without time restriction. Searching key terms covered a wide range of synonyms related to conjoint analysis. The search field was limited to the title, and no language or date limitations were applied. The number of published documents related to CA was nearly 900 during the year 2021 and the total number of citations for CA documents was approximately 20,000 citations, which certainly shows that the popularity of CA is increasing, especially in the healthcare sciences services discipline, which is in the top five fields publishing CA documents. However, there are some limitations regarding the appropriate sample size, quality assessment tool, and external validity of CA.