Search

Objectives To elicit and value patient preferences for the processes and outcomes of surgical management of stress urinary incontinence in women.Design A discrete choice experiment survey to elicit preferences for type of anaesthesia, postoperative recovery time, treatment success, adverse events, impact on daily activities and cost. An experimental design generated 40 choice tasks, and each respondent completed 1 block of 10 and 2 validity tests. Analysis was by multinomial logistical regression.Setting N=21 UK hospitals.Participants N=325 adult women who were a subsample of those randomised to the single-incision mini-slings clinical trial.Outcomes Patient preferences; valuation obtained using willingness to pay.Results N=227 of 325 (70%) returned a questionnaire, and 94% of those completed all choice tasks. Respondents preferred general anaesthesia, shorter recovery times, improved stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of adverse events. Women were willing to pay (mean (95% CI)) £76 (£33 to £119) per day of reduction in recovery time following surgery. They valued increases in Patient Global Impression of Improvement, ranging from £8173 (£5459 to £10 887) for ‘improved’ to £11 706 (£8267 to £15 144) for ‘very much improved’ symptoms, compared with no symptom improvement. This was offset by negative values attached to the avoidance of complications ranging between £−8022 (£−10 661 to £−5383) and £−10 632 (£−14 077 to £−7187) compared to no complications. Women valued treatments that reduced the need to avoid daily activities, with willingness to pay ranging from £−967 (£−2199 to £266) for rarely avoiding activities to £−5338 (£−7258 to £−3417) for frequently avoiding daily activities compared with no avoidance.Conclusion This discrete choice experiment demonstrates that patients place considerable value on improvement in stress urinary incontinence symptoms and avoidance of treatment complications. Trade-offs between symptom improvement and adverse event risk should be considered within shared decision-making. The willingness to pay values from this study can be used in future cost–benefit analyses.Trial registration number ISRCTN: 93264234; Post-results.

Introduction As part of the PIONEER (Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Enhancement Through the Power of Big Data in Europe) Consortium, we will explore which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are currently being researched to previously defined clinical and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa).Methods and analysis This research project will follow the following four steps: (1) a broad systematic literature review of DPFs for all stages of PCa, covering evidence from 2014 onwards; (2) discussion of systematic review findings by a multidisciplinary expert panel; (3) risk of bias assessment and applicability with Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool (QUIPS) and (4) additional quantitative assessments if required.Ethics and dissemination We aim to develop an online tool to present the DPFs identified in this research and make them available across all stakeholders. There are no ethical implications.