Search

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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: One of the challenges faced by hospitals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is resource shortages in intensive care units (ICUs). In times of scarcity, patient prioritization based on non-medical considerations might be necessary., Objective: The aim of this study was to pilot test a survey to elicit public opinions on the relative importance of non-medical considerations in priority setting when admitting patients to the ICU in times of crisis., Methods: A discrete-choice experiment was used to collect social preferences for priority setting when admitting patients to the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. The six attributes were patient age, profession, guardianship, risk-conscious behavior on a societal level, health-conscious behavior, and expected ICU length of stay. The data were analyzed using a mixed multinomial logit model. Interactions between the age and profession of the respondents and the age and profession of the patient profiles were considered., Results: The mean (± standard deviation) age of respondents was 35.9 ± 14.5 years. In all, 70% of respondents indicated that medical and/or non-medical considerations should play a role in prioritizing patients for the ICU, whereas 15% agreed with a "first come, first served" strategy and the remaining 15% had no opinion. Respondents deemed risk-conscious behavior on a societal level to be the most important non-medical factor that should be used to prioritize patients in phase three of the framework, garnering an attribute importance (AI) of 31.2%, followed by patient age (AI 16.3%) and health-conscious behavior (AI 16.0%). ICU length of stay had the lowest impact on patient prioritization for ICU admittance (AI 10.9%). Younger and older respondents attached more importance to age than respondents in the middle age group and indicated a stronger preference to prioritize patients in their own age group (p = 0.042)., Conclusion: The results of our study demonstrate the relative importance members of the public attach to responsible societal behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the next phase of the study, we will elicit the perspectives of a representative sample of the Dutch population. Changes to the task design and attribute operationalization could improve the external validity of the study findings, and optimization of the experimental design will improve the internal validity of the study.

Introduction: Effectiveness of oral anticoagulants (OACs) is critically dependent on patients' adherence to intake regimens. We studied the relative impact of attributes related to effectiveness, safety, convenience, and costs on the value of OAC therapy from the perspective of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation., Methods: Four attributes were identified by literature review and expert interviews: effectiveness (risk of ischemic stroke), safety (risk of major bleeding, minor bleeding, gastrointestinal complaints), convenience (intake frequency, diet restrictions, international normalized ratio [INR] blood monitoring, pill type/intake instructions), and out-of-pocket costs. Focus groups were held in Spain, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom (N = 48) to elicit patients' preferences through the use of the analytical hierarchy process method., Results: Effectiveness (60%) and side effects (27%) have a higher impact on the perceived value of OACs than drug convenience (7%) and out-of-pocket costs (6%). As for convenience, eliminating monthly INR monitoring was given the highest priority (40%), followed by reducing diet restrictions (27%), reducing intake frequency (17%) and improving the pill type/intake instructions (15%). The most important side effect was major bleeding (75%), followed by minor bleeding (15%) and gastrointestinal complaints (10%). Furthermore, 71% of patients preferred once-daily intake to twice-daily intake., Discussion: Although the relative impact of convenience on therapy value is small, patients have different preferences for options within convenience criteria. Besides considerations on safety and effectiveness, physicians should also discuss attributes of convenience with patients, as it can be assumed that alignment to patient preferences in drug prescription and better patient education could result in higher adherence.

Background: Patient and public preferences for therapeutic outcomes or medical technologies are often elicited, and discordance between the two is frequently reported., Objective: Our main objective was to compare patient and public preferences for treatment attributes in Parkinson's disease (PD)., Methods: A representative sample from Dutch PD patients and the general public were invited to complete a best-worst scaling case 2 experiment consisting of six health-related outcomes and one attribute describing the specific treatment (brain surgery, pump, oral medication). Data were analyzed using mixed logit models, and attribute impact was estimated and compared between populations (and population subgroups)., Results: Both the public (N = 276) and patient (N = 198) populations considered treatment modality the most important attribute, although patients assigned higher relative importance. Both groups assigned high disutility to pump infusion and brain surgery and preferred drug treatment. Most health outcomes were valued equally by patients and the public, with the exception of reducing dizziness (more important to the public) and improving slow movement (more important to patients)., Discussion: Although these data do not support definite conclusions on whether patients are less likely to undergo invasive treatments, the (predicted) choice probability of undergoing brain surgery or having pump infusion technology would be low based on the (un)desirability of the attribute levels. Patients with PD might have adapted to their condition and are not willing to undergo advanced treatments in order to receive health improvements. Both public and patient preferences entail information that is potentially relevant for decision makers, and patient preferences can inform decision makers about the likelihood of adaptation to a specific condition.

The need for patient engagement has been recognized by regulatory agencies, but there is no consensus about how to operationalize this. One approach is the formal elicitation and use of patient preferences for weighing clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to demonstrate how patient preferences can be used to weigh clinical outcomes when both preferences and clinical outcomes are uncertain by applying a probabilistic value-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method. Probability distributions were used to model random variation and parameter uncertainty in preferences, and parameter uncertainty in clinical outcomes. The posterior value distributions and rank probabilities for each treatment were obtained using Monte-Carlo simulations. The probability of achieving the first rank is the probability that a treatment represents the highest value to patients. We illustrated our methodology for a simplified case on six HIV treatments. Preferences were modeled with normal distributions and clinical outcomes were modeled with beta distributions. The treatment value distributions showed the rank order of treatments according to patients and illustrate the remaining decision uncertainty. This study demonstrated how patient preference data can be used to weigh clinical evidence using MCDA. The model takes into account uncertainty in preferences and clinical outcomes. The model can support decision makers during the aggregation step of the MCDA process and provides a first step toward preference-based personalized medicine, yet requires further testing regarding its appropriate use in real-world settings., Competing Interests: Compliance with Ethical Standards Author contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. HB collected the data from literature and ran the analyses. HB, ABH, and CGMG-O developed the model. HB, MJI, and CGMG-O drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the critical revision of intellectual content in the final manuscript. All authors approved the final version for submission. CG is the guarantor for the overall content. Funding No funding from external sources was provided for this work. Conflicts of interest Henk Broekhuizen, Maarten IJzerman, Brett Hauber, and Catharina Groothuis-Oudshoorn declare no conflicts of interest.