Search

Simon Fifer,1 Brittany Keen,1 Anna Porter2 1Community and Patient Preference Research (CaPPRe), Sydney, NSW, Australia; 2Novo Nordisk, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaCorrespondence: Brittany Keen, Community and Patient Preference Research (CaPPRe), Level 20, 25 Bligh St, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia, Tel +61 406 886 288, Email brittany.keen@cappre.com.auPurpose: Overweight and obesity are common in Australia and among the leading risk factors for ill health. Maintained weight loss of > 5– 10% can prevent and reduce the risk of obesity-related comorbidities. Prescription weight loss medications plus lifestyle interventions can result in additional weight loss compared with lifestyle interventions alone, but these medications are under-prescribed in Australia. Our aim was to develop a greater understanding of the treatment preferences of people with overweight or obesity and the healthcare practitioners (HCPs) who treat them.Participants and Methods: An online survey of Australian adults with overweight or obesity and treating HCPs was conducted in 2020. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) approach was used to determine what is most important to people when evaluating oral and injectable prescription weight loss medications. Participants were asked to choose between three hypothetical treatment alternatives: “Oral pill”; “Subcutaneous injection pen (replaceable needle)”; “Disposable subcutaneous injection pen (hidden needle)”; and an opt-out option (“None of these”).Results: The online survey and DCE were completed by 193 patients and 104 HCPs. For both patients and HCPs, all treatment alternatives (oral, replaceable injection and disposable injection) were preferred over the opt-out. Gastrointestinal side effects, followed by success rate, percentage body weight lost, and cost were the most important attributes to patients. For HCPs, percentage body weight loss was the most important treatment attribute, followed by success rate, gastrointestinal side effects and cost. While most patients reported relatively low needle fear, physicians reported relatively high perceived patient needle fear.Conclusion: Clinician-patient discussions about treatments for weight loss should cover the option of prescription weight loss medications, including injectable medications, which patients may be less apprehensive about than physicians believe. Treatments with a high success rate and low or manageable risk of gastrointestinal side effects may be preferred over alternatives.Plain Language Summary: Overweight and obesity are the leading cause of health problems in Australia. Medications can be effective for people with this condition when combined with diet and exercise changes, but weight-loss medications in Australia are under-used.To understand why, we surveyed 193 people living with overweight and obesity (“patients”), and 104 healthcare professionals (“HCPs”/doctors) who prescribe weight-loss medications. The online survey asked patients and HCPs to choose between medications with different benefits and risks, to uncover what features are most important to them (eg, would they prefer a medication that helps lose more weight, even if it means more side effects?).We found that both patients and HCPs would prefer to take/prescribe weight-loss medication than go medication-free. Patients preferred to take medications with low risk of gastrointestinal side effects (nausea, diarrhea/vomiting), that would help them lose the most amount of weight, and were not too expensive.HCPs preferred to prescribe medications that would help their patients lose the most amount of weight, that had the highest chance of success, had low risk of gastrointestinal side effects, and low-cost. HCPs also thought patients were more afraid of injectable medications than they actually were (most patients said they did not mind injections).If HCPs have a better understanding of what their patients want from weight-loss medication, they can have more meaningful conversations and offer medications which align with patients’ personal values and long-term health goals. With this approach, patients are more likely to stick with treatment, which means better long-term results.Keywords: discrete choice experiment, overweight, obesity, treatment preferences, treatment, shared decision-making

Background: Listening to patient voices is critical, in terms of how people experience their condition as well as their treatment preferences. This research explored the patient journey, therapy attributes and goals among treatment experienced adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We sought to understand patient experiences, needs and expectations to identify areas for improvement of treatment and care delivery., Methods: Two online surveys were developed for completion by CLL patients. In Stage 1, participants completed a best-worst scaling (BWS) task to evaluate eleven previously validated healthcare journey moments that matter (MTM). Responses were used to generate the patient experience index (PEI) score. In Stage 2, participants completed a survey that included both a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess drivers of treatment preferences by evaluating the relative attribute importance (RAI) of seven features and a BWS exercise which explored long-term treatment goals., Results: Twenty-five patients completed Stage 1 and thirty patients Stage 2. Treatment experience was balanced between oral and intravenous medication. The most important/least satisfied MTM were treatment effectiveness, access to support and other treatments as well as monitoring progress. The median PEI score was 66.2 (out of 100). DCE results demonstrated that patients most value treatments for CLL that are associated with prolonged progression free survival (PFS; RAI: 24.6%), followed by treatments that have a lower risk of severe side effects and lower out-of-pocket costs (RAI: 19.5%, 17.4%, respectively). The remainder of the weight in decision making (38.5%) was split between the remaining attributes, namely 'mild to moderate side effects' (13.4%), 'long-term risks' (12.2%), type of treatment (i.e., oral, IV or a combination of oral and IV; 8.7%) and treatment duration (i.e., ongoing versus fixed; 4.2%). Patients preferred oral to intravenous therapy. The most valued long-term treatment goal was to be physically healthy, followed by living a long life, spending time with family/friends, and avoiding hospitalization., Conclusion: Treatment experienced patients with CLL are focused on receiving effective, safe therapies and value long PFS. Consideration and discussion of other attributes, such as once daily dosing, oral only medication, out-of-pocket costs and access to support services may affect patient treatment choices and ultimately enhance their healthcare experience and outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Subjective well-being (SWB) describes an individual's life evaluation. Direct elicitation methods for SWB via rating scales do not force individuals to trade-off among life domains, whilst best-worst scaling (BWS) approaches only provide relative measures. This paper instead offers a dual-response BWS task, where respondents nominate areas of most and least importance and satisfaction with respect to 11 SWB domains, whilst also eliciting anchoring points to obtain an absolute measure of domain satisfaction. Combining domain satisfaction and importance produces a robust measure of individual SWB, but statistically unique relative to other life satisfaction measures utilizing single- and multi-item ratings, including global satisfaction and those aggregated over SWB domains, as well as eudemonia. Surveying 2500 Australians reveals anchored-BWS improves discrimination amongst domains in terms of importance and satisfaction, illustrating its value as a diagnostic tool for SWB measurement to focus services, policy, and initiatives in areas to most impact wellbeing. This includes highlighting a major discrepancy between health satisfaction and importance, whilst also reporting that SWB is significantly lower for Indigenous, unemployed, middle-aged, males and lower income groups., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Background: This study aimed to determine how patients trade-off the benefits and risks of two different types of procedures used to treat heart valve disease (HVD). It also aimed to determine patients' preferences for HVD treatments (predicted uptake) and the relative importance of each treatment attribute., Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in Australia and Japan with patients who required a heart valve procedure. Patients were stratified into three categories: no prior procedure experience, minimally invasive procedure experience and invasive procedure experience. DCE attributes included risk of mortality; risk of stroke; needing dialysis; needing a new pacemaker; valve durability; independence 1 month after surgery; and out-of-pocket expenses. Participants chose between two hypothetical labelled approaches to therapy ('invasive procedure' and 'minimally invasive procedure'), with a separate opt-out included. A mixed multinomial logit model was used to analyse preferences., Results: The DCE was completed by 143 Australian and 206 Japanese patients. Both populations demonstrated an overall preference for the minimally invasive procedure over the invasive procedure. All attributes tested significantly predicted choice and were important to patient decision-making. However, patients' choices were most influenced by the durability of the valve and the likelihood of independence postprocedure, irrespective of their prior procedure experience. Differences in preference were observed between Australian and Japanese patients; valve durability was the most important attribute among Australian patients, while Japanese patients emphasised regaining independence postsurgery. Risk of mortality was less important relative to other key attributes in Japan; however, it remained significant to the model., Conclusions: HVD patients prefer a minimally invasive procedure over an invasive procedure, irrespective of prior treatment experience. Key attributes contributing to treatment preferences are valve durability and faster recovery. These results can be used to help inform healthcare decision-makers about what features of heart valve procedures patients value most., Patient and Public Contribution: People with lived experience of HVD were included in multiple stages of the design phase of this research. First, patients and doctors were consulted by taking part in qualitative interviews. The qualitative interviews helped inform which treatment attributes to include in the DCE based on what was important to those with lived experience and those who help make treatment decisions on behalf of patients. Qualitative interview participants also assisted with the framing of questions in the online survey to ensure the terminology was patient-friendly and relevant to those with lived experience. Following qualitative interviews, the DCE attribute list was agreed on in expert consultation with a steering committee, which included patient representatives and treating physicians (interventional cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons). The survey was also pilot tested with a small sample of patients and minor adjustments were made to the wording to ensure it was appropriate and meaningful to those with lived experience of HVD., (© 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Evidence is limited on preferences of Japanese patients and physicians in treatment for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several oral or intravenous novel agents for EGFR exon 20 insertions are under development. The aim of our study was to investigate which attributes of novel treatments influenced selection of oral or intravenous agents among treated patients and treating physicians in Japan., Methods: The study was designed by board-certified oncologists, patient representatives, and analytics specialists. Eligible participants completed an online survey with a discrete choice experiment presenting two treatment profiles described by attributes: mode of administration (oral or intravenous); frequency of administration; overall response rate (ORR); average progression-free survival (PFS); chance of experiencing severe side effects (SEs); mild-moderate gastrointestinal SEs; mild-moderate skin-related SEs; and patient out-of-pocket costs., Results: Fifty-four patients (all self-reported EGFR-mutant) and 74 physicians participated from December 2021 to August 2022. All attributes being equal, there was greater preference for oral administration. However, there was greater preference for intravenous over oral, when ORR and PFS improved by 10% and 1 month, and severe SEs reduced by 10%. Physicians exhibited greater preference for PFS compared to patients (p < 0.01). Ranked order of attribute importance was as follows: (1) PFS; (2) ORR; (3) severe SEs, expressed by patients and physicians alike., Conclusions: Our study revealed Japanese physician and patient preferences in treatment options for EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Compared to the strong preference for a more efficacious drug, the preference of oral versus intravenous revealed a smaller impact., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)