Search

Introduction: Covid‐19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. Methods: We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors’ preferences for and trade‐offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. Results: We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. Discussion and Conclusion: Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. Patient or Public Contribution: We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded c

Introduction: Covid‐19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. Methods: We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors’ preferences for and trade‐offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. Results: We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. Discussion and Conclusion: Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. Patient or Public Contribution: We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded c

Introduction Covid-19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. Methods We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors’ preferences for and trade-offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. Results We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. Discussion and Conclusion Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. Patient or Public Contribution We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded coappl

Introduction Covid-19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. Methods We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors’ preferences for and trade-offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. Results We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. Discussion and Conclusion Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. Patient or Public Contribution We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded coappl

Introduction Covid-19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. Methods We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors’ preferences for and trade-offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. Results We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. Discussion and Conclusion Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. Patient or Public Contribution We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded coappl

Introduction Covid-19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. Methods We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors’ preferences for and trade-offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. Results We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. Discussion and Conclusion Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. Patient or Public Contribution We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded coappl

Introduction Covid-19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. Methods We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors’ preferences for and trade-offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. Results We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. Discussion and Conclusion Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. Patient or Public Contribution We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded coappl

Introduction Covid-19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. Methods We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors’ preferences for and trade-offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. Results We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. Discussion and Conclusion Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. Patient or Public Contribution We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded coappl

Introduction: Covid‐19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. Methods: We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors’ preferences for and trade‐offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. Results: We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. Discussion and Conclusion: Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. Patient or Public Contribution: We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded c

Introduction: Covid‐19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. Methods: We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors’ preferences for and trade‐offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. Results: We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. Discussion and Conclusion: Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. Patient or Public Contribution: We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded c

Introduction: Covid‐19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. Methods: We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors’ preferences for and trade‐offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. Results: We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. Discussion and Conclusion: Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. Patient or Public Contribution: We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded c

Introduction: Covid‐19 expanded the use of remote working to engage with public contributors in health and social care research. These changes have the potential to limit the ability to participate in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) for some public contributors. It is therefore important to understand public contributors' preferences, so that remote working can be organized in an optimal way to encourage rather than discourage participation. Methods: We use an economic preference elicitation tool, a discrete choice experiment (DCE), via an online survey, to estimate public contributors’ preferences for and trade‐offs between different features of remote meetings. The features were informed by previous research to include aspects of remote meetings that were relevant to public contributors and amenable to change by PPIE organizers. Results: We found that public contributors are more likely to participate in a PPIE project involving remote meetings if they are given feedback about participation; allowed to switch their camera off during meetings and step away if/when needed; were under 2.5 h long; organized during working hours, and are chaired by a moderator who can ensure that everyone contributes. Different combinations of these features can cause estimated project participation to range from 23% to 94%. When planning PPIE and engaging public contributors, we suggest that resources are focused on training moderators and ensuring public contributors receive meeting feedback. Discussion and Conclusion: Project resources should be allocated to maximize project participation. We provide recommendations for those who work in public involvement and organize meetings on how resources, such as time and financial support, should be allocated. These are based on the preferences of existing public contributors who have been involved in health and social care research. Patient or Public Contribution: We had a public contributor (Naheed Tahir) as a funded c

Like the rest of the world, the pandemic has reshaped the lives and livelihoods of scientists in the health economics and outcomes research community. Many investigators in health preference research reacted by conducting empirical studies to better understand the value of health and health-related alternatives affected by COVID-19. The group identified 18 health preference studies currently under review or ongoing. On 17 June 2020, the first COVID-19 health preference research roundtable was held as an open meeting of the minds, allowing a healthy exchange of ideas between these study teams and other attendees interested in the area. From that discussion, this summary characterizes the state of science for the broader scientific community and for regulators and other decision makers looking for preference evidence regarding COVID-19.

Like the rest of the world, the pandemic has reshaped the lives and livelihoods of scientists in the health economics and outcomes research community. Many investigators in health preference research reacted by conducting empirical studies to better understand the value of health and health-related alternatives affected by COVID-19. The group identified 18 health preference studies currently under review or ongoing. On 17 June 2020, the first COVID-19 health preference research roundtable was held as an open meeting of the minds, allowing a healthy exchange of ideas between these study teams and other attendees interested in the area. From that discussion, this summary characterizes the state of science for the broader scientific community and for regulators and other decision makers looking for preference evidence regarding COVID-19.

Colette Mankowski,1 Divine Ikenwilo,2,† Sebastian Heidenreich,2 Mandy Ryan,2 Jameel Nazir,1 Cathy Newman,1 Verity Watson2 1Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd., Chertsey, 2Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK †Dr Ikenwilo passed away on November 27, 2015 Objective: To explore and quantify men’s preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for attributes of medications for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia using a discrete choice experiment. Subjects and methods: Men in the UK aged ≥45 years with moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia (based on self-reported International Prostate Symptom Score ≥8) were recruited. An online discrete choice experiment survey was administered. Eligible men were asked to consider different medication scenarios and select their preferred medication according to seven attributes: daytime and nighttime (nocturia) urinary frequency, urinary urgency, sexual and nonsexual side effects, number of tablets/day, and cost/month. A mixed-logit model was used to estimate preferences and WTP for medication attributes. Results: In all, 247 men completed the survey. Men were willing to trade-off symptom improvements and treatment side effects. Men preferred medications that reduced urinary urgency and reduced day- and nighttime urinary frequency. Men preferred medications without side effects (base-case level), but did not care about the number of tablets per day. WTP for symptomatic improvement was £25.33/month for reduced urgency (urge incontinence to mild urgency), and £6.65/month and £1.39/month for each unit reduction in night- and ­daytime urination frequency, respectively. The sexual and nonsexual side effects reduced WTP by up to £30.07/month. There was significant heterogeneity in preferences for most attributes, exc

Social valuation of ecosystem services and public policy alternatives is one of the greatest challenges facing ecological economists today. Frameworks for valuing nature increasingly include shared/social values as a distinct category of values. However, the nature of shared/social values, as well as their relationship to other values, has not yet been clearly established and empirical evidence about the importance of shared/social values for valuation of ecosystem services is lacking. To help address these theoretical and empirical limitations, this paper outlines a framework of shared/social values across five dimensions: value concept, provider, intention, scale, and elicitation process. Along these dimensions we identify seven main, non-mutually exclusive types of shared values: transcendental, cultural/societal, communal, group, deliberated and other-regarding values, and value to society. Using a case study of a recent controversial policy on forest ownership in England, we conceptualise the dynamic interplay between shared/social and individual values. The way in which social value is assessed in neoclassical economics is discussed and critiqued, followed by consideration of the relation between shared/social values and Total Economic Value, and a review of deliberative and non-monetary methods for assessing shared/social values. We conclude with a discussion of the importance of shared/social values for decision-making.

Social valuation of ecosystem services and public policy alternatives is one of the greatest challenges facing ecological economists today. Frameworks for valuing nature increasingly include shared/social values as a distinct category of values. However, the nature of shared/social values, as well as their relationship to other values, has not yet been clearly established and empirical evidence about the importance of shared/social values for valuation of ecosystem services is lacking. To help address these theoretical and empirical limitations, this paper outlines a framework of shared/social values across five dimensions: value concept, provider, intention, scale, and elicitation process. Along these dimensions we identify seven main, non-mutually exclusive types of shared values: transcendental, cultural/societal, communal, group, deliberated and other-regarding values, and value to society. Using a case study of a recent controversial policy on forest ownership in England, we conceptualise the dynamic interplay between shared/social and individual values. The way in which social value is assessed in neoclassical economics is discussed and critiqued, followed by consideration of the relation between shared/social values and Total Economic Value, and a review of deliberative and non-monetary methods for assessing shared/social values. We conclude with a discussion of the importance of shared/social values for decision-making.