Search

Background: Defining attributes and attribute levels for a discrete choice experiment (DCE) poses a significant challenge for practitioners exploring preferences for new or unfamiliar products due to the dearth of available information and limits in stakeholder knowledge. This study outlines a comprehensive process for identifying attributes and levels in a DCE aimed at gauging public preferences for health policies related to medicinal cannabis (MC)., Methods: A rigorous four-stage attribute development process was utilized and included i) the formulation of a preliminary attribute list from a scoping review and document analysis, ii) reduction of attributes via focus groups, iii) removal of inappropriate attributes using Delphi studies and research team knowledge, and iv) refinement of attribute language based on the feedback from think-aloud interviews., Results: A base attribute list formed from the scoping review and document analysis served as effective discussion stimuli in focus groups, especially for participants with limited subject knowledge. Structured focus group activities proved more effective than open-ended discussions in engaging naive participants. Delphi studies were found to be overcomplex for expert-led attribute prioritization. Think-aloud interviews during a pilot DCE were essential for assessing attribute language and clarity and understanding participants' decision-making processes., Conclusion: The development of DCE attributes measuring preferences for an unfamiliar health product requires a multi-method approach. Evaluating the outcomes from various methods of attribute development yielded a refined list of attributes that were significant to stakeholders, allowed for meaningful trade-offs, and were presented in language accessible to the target population.

Background: The aim of this scoping review was to examine the extent that stakeholder's decisions about and preferences for the provision and use of medicinal cannabis (MC) had been investigated. We sought to identify which populations were examined, the methods used for eliciting preferences and exploring decisions, and the reported outcomes of studies. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, BSC and PsycINFO) and the reference lists of relevant articles were searched for studies published up to March 2022. Studies were included if stakeholder preferences for MC were (1) the primary focus of the research, or (2) an aspect of a larger preference focus. Studies that (3) described the decisions to use MC were also included. Results: Thirteen studies were reviewed. The population focus of these was primarily patient, with seven studies focused on general patient populations and five studies targeting specific patient populations such as cancer survivors, and people experiencing depression. Methods included health economics preference methods, qualitative interviews, and a single multicriteria decision-making study. Four categories of outcomes were defined and included comparisons of MC with a therapeutic alternative ( n =5), preferences for MC attributes ( n =5), administration preferences ( n =4), and the decision process of users ( n =2). Motivation differences in preference were found. Purely medicinal users and novice users place more importance on cannabidiol (CBD) than tetrahydrocannabinol. Overall, inhalation methods of administration were preferred due to quick onset of symptom relief. Price was the greatest influence on choice for recreational/medicinal users, whereas purely medicinal users were less price sensitive for products with higher CBD content. Conclusion: Studies examining public preferences for the provision and use of MC were absent. Revealed preference methods are a useful technique for understanding preferences for characteristics that are difficult to visibly assess such as cannabinoid or strain. The outcomes of symptom-specific multicriteria decision method studies that compare the benefit-safety profiles of commonly used treatments and MC may be a useful decision support tool for health practitioners. Studies with representative samples are needed to understand the impact of age, gender, and race on preferences for MC.

Background: Patient interest in the use of cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) has increased in Australia. While recent policy and legislative changes have enabled health practitioners to prescribe CBMs for their patients, many patients still struggle to access CBMs. This paper employed a thematic analysis to submissions made to a 2019 Australian government inquiry into current barriers of patient access to medical cannabis., Methods: We identified 121 submissions from patients or family members (n = 63), government bodies (n = 5), non-government organisations (i.e., professional health bodies, charities, consumer organisations or advocacy groups; n = 25), medical cannabis and pharmaceutical industry (n = 16), and individual health professionals, academics, or research centres (n = 12). Data were coded using NVivo 12 software and thematically analysed. The findings were presented narratively using a modified Levesque's patient-centred access to care framework which includes: i) appropriateness; ii) availability and geographic accessibility; iii) acceptability; and iv) affordability., Results: Submissions from government agencies and professional health bodies consistently supported maintaining the current regulatory frameworks and access pathways, whereas an overwhelming majority of patients, advocacy groups and the medical cannabis industry described the current regulatory and access models as 'not fit for purpose'. These differing views seem to arise from divergent persepctives on (i) what and how much evidence is needed for policy and practice, and (ii) how patients should be given access to medical cannabis products amidst empirical uncertainty. Notwithstanding these differences, there were commonalities among some stakeholders regarding the various supply, regulatory, legislative, financial, and dispensing challenges that hindered timely access to CBMs., Conclusions: Progress in addressing the fundamental barriers that determine if and how a patient accesses and uses CBMs needs i) a 'system-level' reform that gives due consideration to the geographic disparity in access to prescribers and medical cannabis, and ii) reframing societal and health professional's views of CBMs by decoupling recreational vs medical cannabis., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2022 Erku et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objectives: Although there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that cannabinoids may relieve symptoms of some illnesses, they are relatively high-cost therapies compared with illicit growth and supply. This article aimed to comprehensively review economic evaluations of medicinal cannabis for alleviating refractory symptoms associated with chronic conditions., Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched for articles published up to September 6, 2020. The quality of reporting of economic evaluations was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. The extracted data were grouped into subcategories according to types of medical conditions, organized into tables, and reported narratively., Results: This review identified 12 cost-utility analyses conducted across a variety of diseases including multiple sclerosis (MS) (N = 8), pediatric drug-resistant epilepsies (N = 2), and chronic pain (N = 2). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied widely from cost saving to more than US$451 800 per quality-adjusted life-year depending on the setting, perspectives, types of medicinal cannabis, and indications. Nabiximols is a cost-effective intervention for MS spasticity in multiple European settings. Cannabidiol was found to be a cost-effective for Dravet syndrome in a Canadian setting whereas a cost-utility analysis conducted in a US setting deemed cannabidiol to be not cost-effective for Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Overall study quality was good, with publications meeting 70% to 100% (median 83%) of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist criteria., Conclusions: Medicinal cannabis-based products may be cost-effective treatment options for MS spasticity, Dravet syndrome, and neuropathic pain, although the literature is nascent. Well-designed clinical trials and health economic evaluations are needed to generate adequate clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence to assist in resource allocation., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)