QUANTITATIVE PATIENT PREFERENCE EVIDENCE FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A CASE STUDY

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.

Using discrete-choice experiments to elicit preferences for digital wearable health technology for self-management of chronic kidney disease

Objectives

Wearable digital health technologies (DHTs) have the potential to improve chronic kidney disease (CKD) management through patient engagement. This study aimed to investigate and elicit preferences of individuals with CKD toward wearable DHTs designed to support self-management of their condition.

Methods

Using the results of our review of the published literature and after conducting qualitative patient interviews, five-choice attributes were identified and included in a discrete-choice experiment. The design consisted of 10-choice tasks, each comprising two hypothetical technologies and one opt-out scenario. We collected data from 113 adult patients with CKD stages 3–5 not on dialysis and analyzed their responses via a latent class model to explore preference heterogeneity.

Results

Two patient segments were identified. In all preference segments, the most important attributes were the device appearance, format, and type of information provided. Patients within the largest preference class (70 percent) favored information provided in any format except the audio, while individuals in the other class preferred information in text format. In terms of the style of engagement with the device, both classes wanted a device that provides options rather than telling them what to do.

Conclusions

Our analysis indicates that user preferences differ between patient subgroups, supporting the case for offering a different design of the device for different patients’ strata, thus moving away from a one-size-fits-all service provision. Furthermore, we showed how to leverage the information from user preferences early in the R&D process to inform and support the provision of nuanced person-centered wearable DHTs.

Use of Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA Representatives

OBJECTIVE

Patient preferences can be informative for health technology assessment (HTA) and payer decision making. However, applications may be different per country. The aim of this study therefore was to investigate HTA representatives' opinions on whether and how to incorporate patient preferences in HTA in their respective countries.

METHODS

Three country-specific focus groups were conducted with three to seven HTA representatives from Germany, Belgium, and Canada. A predefined focus group guide was used that covered topics relating to how patient preferences can be used in HTA, namely HTA stage, weight, impact, and quality, as well as a case example of gene therapy. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 12 following thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Across all HTA bodies, an interest in the use of patient preferences was observed for scientific advice and value assessments, but not through incorporation in quality-adjusted life-years and multi-criteria decision analysis. HTA representatives found it difficult to determine the weight patient preferences may receive in decision making, but thought it could have an impact on payer decision making if the study is of acceptable quality.

CONCLUSIONS

In the near future it may be impossible to achieve structural integration of patient preferences with other evidence in HTA (e.g., in cost-effectiveness analysis), but HTA bodies are willing to incorporate patient preferences in other HTA sections as supportive evidence. To allow for that use, future work should focus on meeting HTA and payer needs when conducting patient preference studies and on education of HTA and payer representatives regarding these studies.

Mapping of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) teaching and training initiatives: Landscape for evidence-based policy decisions in India

Demographic transitions accompanied with epidemiological shifts are affecting many countries around the globe. These apprehensions have raised the concern for constructing and sustaining healthcare systems especially among resource-constrained low- and middle-income-countries (LMICs) such as India. Introducing Health-Technology-Assessment (HTA) in the educational initiatives could support planners and policy-makers in formulating evidence-based-decision-making along with tackling inequalities/inefficiencies and promoting cost-effectiveness in resource allocation. A mapping exercise has been undertaken for examining the feasibility and implementation of HTA curriculum in the existing courses in India. To gain best possible insight on HTA curriculum, a situational analysis was conducted using systematic search strategy through search engines such as Google, Google Scholar, ProQuest and PubMed. Currently, seventy-one institutes in India are offering one or more courses through regular mode at undergraduate/postgraduate/diploma-certificate/doctorate-level pertaining to Medical-technology (MT), Biostatistics (BS), and Health-economics (HE). MT was offered in 37 institutes (52.12%), followed by BS in 23 (32.39%), and HE in nine (12.67%). Only two institutes (2.81%) are offering certificate-courses on HTA, mainly confined in virtual modules. This review reveals noticeable gaps in the existing curriculum in India and necessitates a novel academic initiative by introducing HTA in a full-fledged manner. Reforms in the research and educational initiatives need to be brought for promoting awareness regarding HTA. The application of domain needs to be widened from the field of health-policy formulators to research and teaching. This should be further strengthened with the strong academic collaborations to generate replicable findings, address challenges, and offer solutions for existing threats to HTA.

Evaluation of the impact of patient involvement in health technology assessments: A scoping review

Objectives

While involving patients in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly common and important around the world, little is known about the optimal methods of evaluating patients’ involvement (PI) in HTA. This scoping review was undertaken to provide an overview of currently available methods for the evaluation of PI, specifically the impact of PI on HTA recommendations.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using nine databases as well as a grey literature search of the websites of 26 organizations related to the conduct, practice or research of HTA to identify articles, reports and abstracts related to the evaluation of PI impact in HTA.

Results

We identified 1,248 unique citations, six of which met our eligibility criteria. These six records (five articles, and one report) were all published after 2012. Four assessed the impact of patient experience submissions on final HTA recommendations; one evaluated the impact of direct involvement on HTA committees, and one assessed impact of multiple forms of involvement. Methods of evaluation included quantitative analyses of reimbursement decisions, qualitative interviews with those directly involved in an assessment, surveys of patient groups and committee members, and the review of HTA reports.

Conclusions

Quantitative evaluation of PI based on associations with funding decisions may not be feasible or fully capture the relevant impact of PI in the assessment of health technologies. Rather, a combination of both qualitative and quantitative strategies may allow for the most comprehensive assessment of the impact of PI on HTA recommendations when possible.

What Is Next for Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment? A Systematic Review of the Challenges

BACKGROUND

Integrating patient preferences in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is argued to improve uptake, adherence, and patient satisfaction. However, how to elicit and incorporate these preferences in HTA in a systematic and scientifically valid manner is subject to debate.

OBJECTIVE

This article provides a systematic review of the challenges to integrating patient preferences in HTA that have been raised in the literature about patient preferences in HTA.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles published between 2013 and 2017 addressing challenges to the integration of patient preferences in HTA was conducted in 7 databases. All issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA were extracted and divided into 5 categories: conceptual, normative, procedural, methodological, and practical issues. The issues were ranked according to how often they were mentioned.

RESULTS

Of 2147 retrieved articles, 67 were included in the analysis. Thirty-seven unique research issues were identified. In the majority of the articles, methodological issues were posed (82%), followed by procedural (73%), normative (51%), practical (24%), and conceptual (9%) issues. Frequently posed methodological issues concerned preference heterogeneity and choice of method. Common procedural issues concerned how to evaluate the impact of preference studies and their degree of being evidence based.

CONCLUSIONS

This article provides an overview of issues with respect to the integration of patient preferences in HTA procedures. Most issues were of a methodological or procedural nature; yet, the large number of different issues points to the overall importance of further researching the different aspects concerned with patient preferences in HTA. Through its ranking of how many articles mention particular issues, this article proposes an implicit research agenda.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Patients' perspectives on COPD: findings from a social media listening study

We utilised social media listening (SML) to obtain patients' perspectives on symptoms, diagnosis and comorbidities associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and its impact on patients' quality of life (QoL). A comprehensive search on social media platforms was performed for English language content posted between July 2016 and January 2018 using COPD-related terms. Social Studio, a social media data aggregator tool, was used to capture relevant records. The content was manually curated to analyse and map psychological aspects with descriptive statistics applied on aggregated findings. A total of 849 posts from patients or caregivers ("patient insights") were considered for the analysis, corresponding to postings of 695 unique individuals. Based on 734 mentions of symptoms from 849 posts by potential patients/caregivers, cough (27%), mucus (25%) and shortness of breath (21%) were the most frequent; analysis by perceived COPD severity indicated these to be common across all severities. Difficulty in mucus clearance (24% of 268 mentions) and sadness (40% of 129 mentions) were top among the aspects impacting physical and emotional QoL, respectively. SML from patients with COPD indicated that relief from cough, mucus production and shortness of breath would be the most desirable aspects of disease management from a patient's perspective.

A discrete choice experiment on preferences of patients with low back pain about non-surgical treatments: identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels

Objectives: Hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) needs to consider all relevant data to help decision making, including patients' preferences. In this study, we comprehensively describe the process of identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Methods: A mixed-methods design was used to identify attributes and levels explaining low back pain (LBP) patients' choice for a non-surgical treatment. This design combined a systematic literature review with a patients' focus group, one-on-one interactions with experts and patients, and discussions with stakeholder committee members. Following the patient's focus group, preference exercises were conducted. A consensus about the attributes and levels was researched during discussions with committee members. Results: The literature review yielded 40 attributes to consider in patients' treatment choice. During the focus group, one additional attribute emerged. The preference exercises allowed selecting eight attributes for the DCE. These eight attributes and their levels were discussed and validated by the committee members who helped reframe two levels in one of the attributes and delete one attribute. The final seven attributes were: treatment modality, pain reduction, onset of treatment efficacy, duration of efficacy, difficulty in daily living activities, sleep problem, and knowledge about their body and pain. Conclusion: This study is one of the few to comprehensively describe the selection process of attributes and levels for a DCE. This may help ensure transparency and judge the quality of the decision-making process. In the context of a HB-HTA unit, this strengthens the legitimacy to perform a DCE to better inform decision makers in a patient-centered care approach.

[Ethics in health technology assessment. Review]

INTRODUCTION

Bioethics and the health technologies assessment emerged to help make decisions. The objective of the work was to know, with respect to the health technologies assessment, the scientific production on its ethical issues, the degree of incorporation of these in practice, the inclusion of the values in the deliberative processes and the most relevant approaches to ethical analysis.

METHODOLOGY

A narrative review was made, based on a systematic search of literature in both natural and hierarchical language, using the terms technology assessment biomedical, ethics and deliberation (and its related terms). All types of papers published between May 2007 and April 2017 in Spanish, French, English or Italian that included both ethical aspects and health technology assessment were included. The PUBMED, OVID-Medline, Scopus databases and secondary searches were explored from the identified works. The information was extracted by a single researcher and managed with Mendeley and EPIINFO 7.2.

RESULTS

A total of 141 papers were identified, including 85 after revision by title and summary, with the following characteristics: 29 reviews (5 systematic), 16 frameworks, 18 methodological works and 29 with description of experiences. Multiple frameworks, approaches and methods in ethical analysis were identified.

CONCLUSION

The health technologies assessment has an approach excessively mechanistic, and can be improved by incorporating the values of the stakeholder, through deliberative processes. The methods of ethical analysis that seem most suitable are the axiological ones and those developed specifically for the health technologies assessment.

Patient Involvement in the Lifecycle of Medicines According to Belgian Stakeholders: The Gap Between Theory and Practice

Background: Patient involvement is often acknowledged as an important aspect of the lifecycle of medicines. Although different typologies exist, patient involvement has been described as the involvement of patients in decision-making regarding medicines. In view of the diversity of stakeholders and types of decisions in which patients might be involved, an in-depth understanding of these stakeholders' views toward involving patients in the lifecycle of medicines is essential. Methods: Interviews and surveys were used to gain insights into the perspectives and experiences of Belgian healthcare stakeholders. Interviews (n = 22) were conducted with academics, hospital pharmacists and representatives from health insurance funds, the Belgian reimbursement agency, pharmaceutical industry and patient organizations. Interviews underwent a framework analysis. Surveys (n = 108) were completed by hospital visitors and analyzed descriptively. Results: Despite an increasing amount of efforts to involve patients, interviewees labeled the level of actively involving patients as rather low and scattered across the different phases of the lifecycle of medicines. The main opportunities for patient involvement highlighted by interviewees were for: (i) informing early development decisions on which treatments to develop, (ii) clinical trial endpoint selection and (iii) clinical trial protocol design. However, remaining questions surrounding patient knowledge, and particularly how and which patients to involve represent important barriers toward implementing patient involvement in the lifecycle of medicines. Of survey participants, 77% indicated to be willing to participate in patient preference studies. Reasons for participating mentioned most frequently were "to improve development of treatments," because "it is important to explore and listen to patient preferences" and "to have a voice as patients". Conclusions: The barriers identified in this study hamper transitioning patient involvement from theory to practice. Bridging this gap requires addressing the identified barriers and unresolved questions surrounding the right methodology for involving patients, the "right patients" to involve and means to increase patient knowledge. In order to do so, further research should focus on assessing the value of methods that allow to indirectly capture patients' perspective both in the context of development as well as in the context of evaluation.

Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review

Industry, regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, and payers are exploring the use of patient preferences in their decision-making processes. In general, experience in conducting and assessing patient preference studies is limited. Here, we performed a systematic literature search and review to identify factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies, as well as applications throughout the medical product lifecyle. Factors and situations identified in 113 publications related to the organization, design, and conduct of studies, and to communication and use of results. Although current use of patient preferences is limited, we identified possible applications in discovery, clinical development, marketing authorization, HTA, and postmarketing phases.

A systematic review of how patients value COPD outcomes

Our objective was to summarise systematically all research evidence related to how patients value outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).We conducted a systematic review (systematic review registration number CRD42015015206) by searching PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL, and included reports that assessed the relative importance of outcomes from COPD patients' perspective. Two authors independently determined the eligibility of studies, abstracted the eligible studies and assessed risk of bias. We narratively summarised eligible studies, meta-analysed utilities for individual outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach.We included 217 quantitative studies. Investigators most commonly used utility measurements of outcomes (n=136), discrete choice exercises (n=13), probability trade-off (n=4) and forced choice techniques (n=46). Patients rated adverse events as important but on average, less so than symptom relief. Exacerbation and hospitalisation due to exacerbation are the outcomes that COPD patients rate as most important. This systematic review provides a comprehensive registry of related studies.

Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice-based decision-making process in a collectively funded health system

Evidence about cost-effectiveness is increasingly being used to inform decisions about the funding of new technologies that are usually implemented as guidelines from centralized decision-making bodies. However, there is also an increasing recognition for the role of patients in determining their preferred treatment option. This paper presents a method to estimate the value of implementing a choice-based decision process using the cost-effectiveness analysis toolbox. This value is estimated for 3 alternative scenarios. First, it compares centralized decisions, based on population average cost-effectiveness, against a decision process based on patient choice. Second, it compares centralized decision based on patients' subgroups versus an individual choice-based decision process. Third, it compares a centralized process based on average cost-effectiveness against a choice-based process where patients choose according to a different measure of outcome to that used by the centralized decision maker. The methods are applied to a case study for the management of acute coronary syndrome. It is concluded that implementing a choice-based process of treatment allocation may be an option in collectively funded health systems. However, its value will depend on the specific health problem and the social values considered relevant to the health system.

Methods to perform systematic reviews of patient preferences: a literature survey

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are a commonly used research design in the medical field to synthesize study findings. At present-although several systematic reviews of patient preference studies are published-there is no clear guidance available for researchers to conduct this type of systematic review. The aim of our study was to learn the most current practice of conducting these systematic reviews by conducting a survey of the literature regarding reviews of quantitative patient preference studies.

METHODS

Our survey included systematic reviews of studies that used a stated quantitative preference design to elicit patient preferences. We identified eligible reviews through a search of the PubMed database. Two investigators with knowledge of the design of patient preference studies independently screened the titles and abstracts, and where needed, screened the full-text of the reviews to determine eligibility. We developed and pilot-tested a form to extract data on the methods used in each systematic review.

RESULTS

Our search and screening identified 29 eligible reviews. A large proportion of the reviews (19/29, 66%) were published in 2014 or after; among them, nine reviews were published in 2016. The median number of databases searched for preference studies was four (interquartile range = 2 to 7). We found that less than half of the reviews (13/29, 45%) clearly reported assessing risk of bias or the methodological quality of the included preference studies; not a single review was able to perform quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) of the data on patient preferences.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that several methodological issues of performing systematic reviews of patient preferences are not yet fully addressed by research and that the methodology may require future development.

Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients' views and preferences

BACKGROUND

Identifying scientific literature addressing patients' views and preferences is complex due to the wide range of studies that can be informative and the poor indexing of this evidence. Given the lack of guidance we developed a search strategy to retrieve this type of evidence.

METHODS

We assembled an initial list of terms from several sources, including the revision of the terms and indexing of topic-related studies and, methods research literature, and other relevant projects and systematic reviews. We used the relative recall approach, evaluating the capacity of the designed search strategy for retrieving studies included in relevant systematic reviews for the topic. We implemented in practice the final version of the search strategy for conducting systematic reviews and guidelines, and calculated search's precision and the number of references needed to read (NNR).

RESULTS

We assembled an initial version of the search strategy, which had a relative recall of 87.4% (yield of 132/out of 151 studies). We then added some additional terms from the studies not initially identified, and re-tested this improved version against the studies included in a new set of systematic reviews, reaching a relative recall of 85.8% (151/out of 176 studies, 95% CI 79.9 to 90.2). This final version of the strategy includes two sets of terms related with two domains: "Patient Preferences and Decision Making" and "Health State Utilities Values". When we used the search strategy for the development of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines we obtained low precision values (ranging from 2% to 5%), and the NNR from 20 to 50.

CONCLUSIONS

This search strategy fills an important research gap in this field. It will help systematic reviewers, clinical guideline developers, and policy-makers to retrieve published research on patients' views and preferences. In turn, this will facilitate the inclusion of this critical aspect when formulating heath care decisions, including recommendations.

The development of PubMed search strategies for patient preferences for treatment outcomes

BACKGROUND

The importance of respecting patients' preferences when making treatment decisions is increasingly recognized. Efficiently retrieving papers from the scientific literature reporting on the presence and nature of such preferences can help to achieve this goal. The objective of this study was to create a search filter for PubMed to help retrieve evidence on patient preferences for treatment outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 27 journals were hand-searched for articles on patient preferences for treatment outcomes published in 2011. Selected articles served as a reference set. To develop optimal search strategies to retrieve this set, all articles in the reference set were randomly split into a development and a validation set. MeSH-terms and keywords retrieved using PubReMiner were tested individually and as combinations in PubMed and evaluated for retrieval performance (e.g. sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp)).

RESULTS

Of 8238 articles, 22 were considered to report empirical evidence on patient preferences for specific treatment outcomes. The best search filters reached Se of 100 % [95 % CI 100-100] with Sp of 95 % [94-95 %] and Sp of 97 % [97-98 %] with 75 % Se [74-76 %]. In the validation set these queries reached values of Se of 90 % [89-91 %] with Sp 94 % [93-95 %] and Se of 80 % [79-81 %] with Sp of 97 % [96-96 %], respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Narrow and broad search queries were developed which can help in retrieving literature on patient preferences for treatment outcomes. Identifying such evidence may in turn enhance the incorporation of patient preferences in clinical decision making and health technology assessment.

The use of research evidence on patient preferences in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and clinical practice guideline development: exploratory study into current state of play and potential barriers

BACKGROUND

The patient perspective is increasingly considered in healthcare policy decisions. The use of research on patient preferences seems however limited. Using the available research on patient preferences would make healthcare policy decisions more evidence-based regarding the patient perspective. Objective of this study is to investigate whether and how results of research on patient preferences are incorporated in current procedures for pharmaceutical coverage decisions and clinical practice guideline (CPG) development.

METHODS

A document analysis on procedure descriptions was combined with case studies. Analyses were performed for five European countries. In the document analysis we systematically checked whether the procedure provides guidance on the systematic use of research on patient preferences, and whether the search and use of research on patient preferences is mentioned in the decision making procedure. In the case studies, which were for exploratory purposes, we scored whether or not research question on patient preferences were formulated, whether or not a search strategy including terms relating to patient preferences was mentioned, whether results of this search strategy were shown and finally, how many references with preference-related terms were included in the reference list of the case.

RESULTS

None of the procedures for pharmaceutical coverage decisions mentions the systematic consideration of research on patient preferences. For CPG development, the Scottish procedure refers to a mandatory literature search. In the Netherlands this step is optional. In the case studies for pharmaceutical coverage decisions only one reference related to patient preferences was found. Some of the case studies for CPG included research questions, search strategies and references relating to patient preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

This study illustrates that systematic consideration of research on patient preferences in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and guideline development is limited, or if taken into account, this is not visible. This contrasts the strong movement towards patient involvement in health care. Several potential barriers may explain the limited use of research on patient preferences.

Integrating patients into meaningful real-world research

Research in respiratory, sleep, and critical care medicine has historically been the domain of scientists and clinicians attempting to understand pathophysiological mechanisms and consequences of disease in an effort to develop effective treatments. This traditional approach of placing scientific rigor before the patient's reality is changing. There is growing recognition of the importance of integrating patient perspectives (e.g., preferences, expectations, and expanded definitions of what constitutes "successful" outcomes) into clinical research to achieve meaningful results for a broader group of stakeholders. This evolution is reflected in the growth of patient-centered organizations and patient advocacy groups that seek to meaningfully integrate patients into the process of prioritizing research needs and creating alliances wherein patients and researchers can partner together to accomplish research goals. In tandem, a growing number of real-world trials (i.e., those with broader, more representative patient populations and routine care pathways) now complement findings from traditional randomized controlled trials and offer new opportunities to design studies that better reflect patients' healthcare preferences and experiences. Patients' perspectives are key determinants of treatment adherence and outcomes, as well as the feasibility and likely value of implementing care pathways. The advent of smartphone and push technologies offer new opportunities for the collection of more patient-centered and ecologically valid patient data, thereby adding new dimensions to meaningfully integrate patients into real-world research.