Search

Xin Yi Wong,1 Catharina GM Groothuis-Oudshoorn,2 Chuen Seng Tan,3 Janine A van Til,2 Mikael Hartman,3,4 Kok Joon Chong,5 Maarten J IJzerman,2,6,7 Hwee-Lin Wee1,3 1Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; 2Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands; 3Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; 4Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; 5Department of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore; 6Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; 7Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia Background: Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) gene test is a potential tool for improving the accuracy of breast cancer risk prediction. We seek to measure women’s preferences and marginal willingness-to-pay (mWTP) for this new technology. Materials and methods: We administered a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to English-speaking Singaporean women aged 40–69 years without any history of breast cancer, enrolled via door-to-door recruitment with quota sampling by age and ethnicity. DCE attributes comprise: 1) sample type (buccal swab and dried blood spot), 2) person conducting pretest discussion (specialist doctor, non-specialist doctor, and nurse educator), 3) test location (private family clinic, public primary-care clinic, and hospital), and 4) out-of-pocket cost (S$50, S$175, and S$300). Mixed logit model was used to estimate the effect of attribute levels on women’s preferences and mWTP. Interactions between significant attributes and respondent characteristics were investigated. Predicted uptake rates for various gene testing scenarios were studied. Results: A total of 300 women aged 52.6±7.6 years completed the survey (100 Chinese, Malay, and Indian women, respectively). Sample type (P=0.046), person conducting pretest discussion, and out-of-pocket cost (P

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to investigate the effect of a priori information on preferences for treatment elicited in a discrete choice experiment. METHODS: A convenience sample of 100 subjects was randomly split into two groups. The groups received minimal or extensive information on the treatment of ankle and foot impairment in stroke. Then, they participated in a discrete choice experiment. Possible treatment was described using eight decision criteria with two to four levels each. Part-worth utility coefficients for the criteria levels, criteria importance and overall treatment preference were estimated. It was tested whether the amount of information that was received influenced the outcome of the discrete choice experiment. RESULTS: In the extensively informed group fewer reversals in the expected order of part-worth utilities were found. Criteria importance for four of the eight criteria and criteria importance ranking between the minimally and extensively informed subject groups were significantly different. The difference in part-worth utility of the levels had a minor effect on the predicted utility of the available treatments. CONCLUSION: The lower number of level rank reversals in the extensively informed subjects indicates a better understanding of outcome desirability and thus a better understanding of the decision task. The effect of more extensive information on predicted treatment preference was minimal. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: While interpreting the results of a discrete choice experiment, the effect of prior knowledge on the decision problem has to be taken into account. Although information seems to increase the understanding of the decision task, outcomes valuation can also be directed by information and more extensive information increases the cognitive burden which is placed on the subjects. Future research should focus on the exact nature and size of the effects and the results of this study should be clinically validated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of various treatment modalities for hemiplegic shoulder pain. DESIGN: A stage II economic evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost effectiveness ratio of P-NMES, compared to slings and anti-inflammatory injections. RESULTS: The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of p-NMES, compared to anti-inflammatory injections is 6,061 euro(+/-3,285). The incremental cost of the first quality-adjusted life year after implantation of the P-NMES device compared to anti-inflammatory injections is 33,007 euro (+/-5,434). This decreases to approximately 7,000 euro after 5 years, and to approximately 5,000 euro after 10 survival years. CONCLUSION: In this early evaluation, P-NMES seems to be cost-effective according to known guidelines. Treatment with P-NMES is recommended for patients with chronic HSP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objectives Resource allocation is a challenging issue faced by health policy decisionmakers requiring careful consideration of many factors. Objectives of this study were to identify decision criteria and their frequency reported in the literature on healthcare decisionmaking. Method An extensive literature search was performed in Medline and EMBASE to identify articles reporting healthcare decision criteria. Studies conducted with decisionmakers (e.g., focus groups, surveys, interviews), conceptual and review articles and articles describing multicriteria tools were included. Criteria were extracted, organized using a classification system derived from the EVIDEM framework and applying multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) principles, and the frequency of their occurrence was measured. Results Out of 3146 records identified, 2790 were excluded. Out of 356 articles assessed for eligibility, 40 studies included. Criteria were identified from studies performed in several regions of the world involving decisionmakers at micro, meso and macro levels of decision and from studies reporting on multicriteria tools. Large variations in terminology used to define criteria were observed and 360 different terms were identified. These were assigned to 58 criteria which were classified in 9 different categories including: health outcomes; types of benefit; disease impact; therapeutic context; economic impact; quality of evidence; implementation complexity; priority, fairness and ethics; and overall context. The most frequently mentioned criteria were: equity/fairness (32 times), efficacy/effectiveness (29), stakeholder interests and pressures (28), cost-effectiveness (23), strength of evidence (20), safety (19), mission and mandate of health system (19), organizational requirements and capacity (17), patient-reported outcomes (17) and need (16). Conclusion This study highlights the importance of considering both normative and feasibility criteria for fair allocation of resources and optimized decisionmaking for coverage and use of healthcare interventions. This analysis provides a foundation to develop a questionnaire for an international survey of decisionmakers on criteria and their relative importance. The ultimate objective is to develop sound multicriteria approaches to enlighten healthcare decisionmaking and priority-setting.

This study supported the evaluation by a rehabilitation team of the performance of two treatment options that improve the arm-hand function in subjects with sixth cervical vertebra (C6) level Motor Group 2 tetraplegia. The analytic hierarchy process, a technique for multicriteria decision analysis, was used by a rehabilitation team and potential recipients to quantitatively compare a new technology, Functional Elec trical Stimulation (FES), with conventional surgery. Perform-ance was measured by functional improvement, treatment load, risks, user-friendliness, and social outcomes. Functional improvement after FES was considered better than that after conventional surgery. However, the rehabilitation team's overall rating for conventional surgery was slightly higher than that for FES (57% vs 44%). Compared with the rehabilitation team, potential recipients gave greater weight to burden of treatment and less weight to functional improvement. This study shows that evaluation of new technology must be more comprehensive than the evaluation of functional improvement alone, and that patient preferences may differ from those of the rehabilitation team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Fatigue is the most prevalent symptom across cancer types. To support clinicians in providing fatigue-related supportive care, this study aims to develop and compare models predicting clinically relevant fatigue (CRF) occurring between two and three years after diagnosis, and to assess the validity of the best-performing model across diverse cancer populations., Methods: Patients with non-metastatic bladder, colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, or prostate cancer who completed a questionnaire within three months after diagnosis and a subsequent questionnaire between two and three years thereafter, were included. Predictor variables included clinical, socio-demographic, and patient-reported variables. The outcome was CRF (EORTC QLQC30 fatigue ≥ 39). Logistic regression using LASSO selection was compared to more advanced Machine Learning (ML) based models, including Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), support vector machines (SVM), and artificial neural networks (ANN). Internal-external cross-validation was conducted on the best-performing model., Results: 3160 patients were included. The logistic regression model had the highest C-statistic (0.77) and balanced accuracy (0.65), both indicating good discrimination between patients with and without CRF. However, sensitivity was low across all models (0.22-0.37). Following internal-external validation, performance across cancer types was consistent (C-statistics 0.73-0.82)., Conclusion: Although the models' discrimination was good, the low balanced accuracy and poor calibration in the presence of CRF indicates a relatively high likelihood of underdiagnosis of future CRF. Yet, the clinical applicability of the model remains uncertain. The logistic regression performed better than the ML-based models and was robust across cohorts, suggesting an advantage of simpler models to predict CRF., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) are commonly used Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for breast cancer. This study assesses and compares the internal responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 in Dutch breast cancer patients during the first year post-surgery. Women diagnosed with breast cancer who completed the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 pre-operatively (T0), 6 months (T6), and 12 months post-surgery (T12) were included. Mean differences of the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 between baseline and 6 months (delta 1) and between baseline and 12 months post-surgery (delta 2) were calculated and compared against the respective minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of 0.08 and 5. Internal responsiveness was assessed using effect sizes (ES) and standardized response means (SRM) for both deltas. In total, 333 breast cancer patients were included. Delta 1 and delta 2 for the EQ-5D-5L index and most scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 were below the MCID. The internal responsiveness for both PROMs was small (ES and SRM < 0.5), with greater internal responsiveness for delta 1 compared to delta 2. The EQ-5D-5L index showed greater internal responsiveness than the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Quality of Life scale and summary score. These findings are valuable for the interpretation of both PROMs in Dutch breast cancer research and clinical care.

Weaning and liberation from VA ECMO in cardiogenic shock patients comprises a complex process requiring a continuous trade off between multiple clinical parameters. In the absence of dedicated international guidelines, we hypothesized a great heterogeneity in weaning practices among ECMO centers due to a variety in local preferences, logistics, case load and individual professional experience. This qualitative study focused on the appraisal of clinicians' preferences in decision processes towards liberation from VA ECMO after cardiogenic shock while using focus group interviews in 4 large hospitals. The goal was to provide novel and unique insights in daily clinical weaning practices. As expected, we found we a great heterogeneity of weaning strategies among centers and professionals, although participants appeared to find common ground in a clinically straightforward approach to assess the feasibility of ECMO liberation at the bedside. This was shown in a preference for robust, easily accessible parameters such as arterial pulse pressure, stable cardiac index ≥2.1 L/min, VTI LVOT and 'eyeballing' LVEF., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Generating guideline-based recommendations during multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings in solid cancers is getting more complex due to increasing amount of information needed to follow the guidelines. Usage of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can simplify and optimize decision-making. However, CDSS implementation is lagging behind. Therefore, we aim to compose a CDSS implementation model. By performing a scoping review of the currently reported CDSSs for MDT decision-making we determined 102 barriers and 86 facilitators for CDSS implementation out of 44 papers describing 20 different CDSSs. The most frequently reported barriers and facilitators for CDSS implementation supporting MDT decision-making concerned CDSS maintenance (e.g. incorporating guideline updates), validity of recommendations and interoperability with electronic health records. Based on the identified barriers and facilitators, we composed a CDSS implementation model describing clinical utility, analytic validity and clinical validity to guide CDSS integration more successfully in the clinical workflow to support MDTs in the future., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Dutch and European guidelines recommend systematic screening for cognitive and emotional impairments in cardiac arrest survivors. We aimed to clarify opinions on cognitive screening and rehabilitation, identify barriers and facilitators for implementation in the Netherlands, and arrive at recommendations in this field. We conducted 22 semi-structured interviews with various stakeholders using the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases checklist. There is broad-based acknowledgement of the relevance of cognitive impairment and a positive attitude regarding early cognitive screening among health professionals and patients. Barriers to implementation include a lack of practical recommendations on how, where and when to screen, insufficient knowledge of cognitive consequences of cardiac arrest, insufficient collaboration and knowledge sharing among different specialties within hospitals, insufficient resources, and insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of screening and therapy to justify financial compensation. Most of the identified barriers to implementation are solvable: national guidelines need practical recommendations and knowledge gaps among healthcare workers can be bridged by in-hospital collaboration. Fulfilling these requirements should be sufficient for the implementation of simple screening and tailored advice. More extensive cognitive rehabilitation therapy needs stronger evidence of efficacy in order to warrant stronger guideline recommendations and financial reimbursement., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Health preference research (HPR) is being increasingly conducted to better understand patient preferences for medical decisions. However, patients vary in their desire to play an active role in medical decisions. Until now, few studies have considered patients' preferred roles in decision making. In this opinion paper, we advocate for HPR researchers to assess and account for role preferences in their studies, to increase the relevance of their work for medical and shared decision making. We provide recommendations on how role preferences can be elicited and integrated with health preferences: (1) in formative research prior to a health preference study that aims to inform medical decisions or decision makers, (2a) in the development of health preference instruments, for instance by incorporating a role preference instrument and (2b) by clarifying the respondent's role in the decision prior to the preference elicitation task or by including role preferences as an attribute in the task itself, and (3) in statistical analysis by including random parameters or latent classes to raise awareness of heterogeneity in role preferences and how it relates to health preferences. Finally, we suggest redefining the decision process as a model that integrates the role and health preferences of the different parties that are involved. We believe that the field of HPR would benefit from learning more about the extent to which role preferences relate to health preferences, within the context of medical and shared decision making., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: Approximately one third of children with JIA receive biologic therapy, but evidence on biologic therapy withdrawal is lacking. This study aims to increase our understanding of whether and when pediatric rheumatologists postpone a decision to withdraw biologic therapy in children with clinically inactive non-systemic JIA., Methods: A survey containing questions about background characteristics, treatment patterns, minimum treatment time with biologic therapy, and 16 different patient vignettes, was distributed among 83 pediatric rheumatologists in Canada and the Netherlands. For each vignette, respondents were asked whether they would withdraw biologic therapy at their minimum treatment time, and if not, how long they would continue biologic therapy. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, logistic and interval regression analysis., Results: Thirty-three pediatric rheumatologists completed the survey (40% response rate). Pediatric rheumatologists are most likely to postpone the decision to withdraw biologic therapy when the child and/or parents express a preference for continuation (OR 6.3; p < 0.001), in case of a flare in the current treatment period (OR 3.9; p = 0.001), and in case of uveitis in the current treatment period (OR 3.9; p < 0.001). On average, biologic therapy withdrawal is initiated 6.7 months later when the child or parent prefer to continue treatment., Conclusion: Patient's and parents' preferences were the strongest driver of a decision to postpone biologic therapy withdrawal in children with clinically inactive non-systemic JIA and prolongs treatment duration. These findings highlight the potential benefit of a tool to support pediatric rheumatologists, patients and parents in decision making, and can help inform its design., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) assesses five capabilities that are important to one's well-being. The instrument might be an important addition to generic health questionnaires when evaluating quality of life extending beyond health. This study aimed to conduct a psychometric assessment of the Dutch translation of the ICECAP-A., Methods: Construct validity of the instrument was assessed in two ways. First, by measuring correlations with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and a measure of self-efficacy and, second, by investigating the ability to distinguish between groups known to differ on the construct the ICECAP-A means to capture. Additionally, test-retest reliability was evaluated., Results: In total, 1002 participants representative of the general Dutch population completed an online survey. For test-retest reliability, 252 participants completed the same questionnaire 2 weeks later. The ICECAP-A indicated moderate to strong correlations with the EQ-5D-5L and a strong correlation with self-efficacy. Furthermore, it was capable of differentiating known groups. Moreover, results indicated adequate test-retest reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.79., Conclusion: In summary, results suggest adequate test-retest reliability and construct validity and indicate that the ICECAP-A might be of added value, especially when considering areas outside of the traditional health intervention model., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objectives: The ICEpop Capability Measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) assesses 5 capabilities (stability, attachment, autonomy, achievement, and enjoyment) that are important to one's quality of life and might be an important addition to generic health questionnaires currently used in economic evaluations. This study aimed to develop a Dutch tariff of the Dutch translation of the ICECAP-A., Methods: The methods used are similar to those used in the development of the UK tariff. A profile case best-worst scaling task was presented to 1002 participants from the general Dutch population. A scale-adjusted latent class analysis was performed to test for preferences of ICECAP-A capabilities and scale heterogeneity., Results: A 3-preference class 2-scale class model with worst choice as scale predictor was considered optimal and was used to calculate the resulting tariff. Results indicated that the capabilities stability, attachment, and enjoyment were considered more important aspects of quality of life than autonomy and achievement. Additionally, improving capabilities from low to moderate levels had a larger effect on quality of life than improving capabilities that were already at a higher level., Conclusions: The ICECAP-A tariffs found in this study could be used in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions in The Netherlands., (Copyright © 2021 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In Parkinson's disease (PD), several disease-modifying treatments are being tested in (pre-)clinical trials. To successfully implement such treatments, it is important to have insight into factors influencing the professionals' decision to start disease-modifying treatments in persons who are in the prodromal stage of PD., Objective: We aim to identify factors that professionals deem important in deciding to a start disease-modifying treatment in the prodromal stage of PD., Methods: We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to elicit preferences of neurologists and last-year neurology residents regarding treatment in the prodromal phase of PD. The DCE contained 16 hypothetical choice sets in which participants were asked to choose between two treatment options. The presented attributes included treatment effect, risk of severe side-effects, risk of mild side-effects, route of administration, and annual costs., Results: We included 64 neurologists and 18 last year neurology residents. Participants attached most importance to treatment effect and to the risk of severe side-effects. Participants indicated that they would discuss one of the presented treatments in daily practice more often in persons with a high risk of being in the prodromal phase compared to those with a moderate risk. Other important factors for deciding to start treatment included the amount of evidence supporting the putative treatment effect, the preferences of the person in the prodromal phase, and the life expectancy., Conclusion: This study provides important insights in factors that influence decision making by professionals about starting treatment in the prodromal phase of PD.

Purpose: International coronary revascularization guidelines recommend both, transradial vascular access for coronary angiography/intervention and use of the radial artery as a conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). These recommendations may pose a clinical dilemma, as transradial access exposes these arteries to vascular trauma which makes them potentially unsuitable as future grafts. In this study, we investigated the awareness and views of cardiologists on these guideline recommendations., Methods: We performed semi-structured interviews with 50 cardiologists from 19 centers, who regularly perform coronary angiographies or interventions, and outlined clinical scenarios to evaluate their preference of vascular access. In addition, we assessed whether preference was related to sub-specialization., Results: The interviewed cardiologists had 16 ± 9.3 years of professional experience. There were 23 (46%) cardiologists from 7 centers without percutaneous coronary intervention facilities, and 27 (56%) cardiologists from 12 interventional centers. All 50 (100%) cardiologists indicated familiarity with the guidelines, yet 28 (56%) said not to be familiar with the aforementioned dilemma, and 9 (18%) stated there was no dilemma at all. Responses did not differ significantly between interventional (n = 28) and non-interventional (n = 22) cardiologists; however, if the right radial artery was unavailable (e.g., occluded), interventional cardiologists more often said to prefer access via the left radial artery (18/28 (64%) vs. 5/22 (23%), p = 0.001)., Conclusion: More than half of the interviewed cardiologists indicated that they had not realized that left transradial access preceding CABG may preclude later use of this artery as a conduit. Notably, in case of unavailability of the right radial artery, interventional cardiologists preferred left transradial access more often than non-interventional cardiologists., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest There was no conflict of interest related to the present study. Outside this research, Thoraxcentrum Twente has received institutional research grants from Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific and Medtronic., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

As ongoing trials study the safety of an active surveillance strategy for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), there is a need to explain why particular choices regarding treatment strategies are made by eligible women as well as their oncologists, what factors enter the decision process, and how much each factor affects their choice. To measure preferences for treatment and surveillance strategies, women with newly-diagnosed, primary low-risk DCIS enrolled in the Dutch CONTROL DCIS Registration and LORD trial, and oncologists participating in the Dutch Health Professionals Study were invited to complete a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The relative importance of treatment strategy-related attributes (locoregional intervention, 10-year risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC), and follow-up interval) were discerned using conditional logit models. A total of n = 172 patients and n = 30 oncologists completed the DCE. Patient respondents had very strong preferences for an active surveillance strategy with no surgery, irrespective of the 10-year risk of iIBC. Extensiveness of the locoregional treatment was consistently shown to be an important factor for patients and oncologists in deciding upon treatment strategies. Risk of iIBC was least important to patients and most important to oncologists. There was a stronger inclination toward a twice-yearly follow-up for both groups compared to annual follow-up.

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.

Objective: This study examines European decision makers' consideration and use of quantitative preference data., Methods: The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions., Results: Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences., Conclusion: While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Current guidelines for the development of decision aids recommend that they have to include a process for helping patients clarify their personal values, for example, by using values clarification methods. In this article, we extensively described the development process of the web-based values clarification method for patients with localized low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer based on the analytic hierarchy process. With analytic hierarchy process, the relative importance of different attributes of available treatments can be determined through series of pairwise comparisons of potential outcomes. Furthermore, analytic hierarchy process is able to use this information to present respondents with a quantitative overall treatment score and can therefore give actual treatment advice upon patients' request. The addition of this values clarification method to an existing web-based treatment decision aid for patients with localized prostate cancer is thought to improve the support offered to patients in their decision-making process and their decision quality.

Objective: As part of the Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project, this study aimed to answer the following research questions: 1) How do European citizens perceive the quality of primary health care provided for children? And 2) What are their priorities with respect to quality assessment of primary health care aimed at satisfying children's needs?, Methods: Nine potential attributes of quality of primary care were operationalized in 40 quality aspects. An online survey was used to elicit opinions in a representative sample of citizens of Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Data collection comprised: background characteristics; perceived quality of primary health care for children; and priority setting of quality aspects. Descriptive analysis was performed and differences between groups were tested using Chi-Square test and ANOVA., Results: Valid results were obtained from 2403 respondents. Mean satisfaction with quality of primary care ranged from 5.5 (Poland) to 7.2 (Spain). On average, between 56% (Poland) and 70% (Netherlands) of respondents had a positive perception of the primary health care system for children in their country. The ability of a child to limit their parents' access to the child's medical records was judged most negatively in all countries (average agreement score 28%, range 12-36%). The right of a child to a confidential consultation was judged most differently between countries (average agreement score 61%, range 40-75%). Overall top-10 priorities in ensuring high quality primary care were: timeliness (accessibility); skills/competences, management, facilities (appropriateness); no costs (affordability); information, dignity/respect (continuity); and swift referrals, collaboration (coordination)., Discussion: Between countries, significant differences exist in the perceived quality of primary care and priorities with regard to quality assessment. Taking into account the citizens' perspective in decision-making means that aspects with low perceived quality that are highly prioritized warrant further action., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exist.

Introduction: Current follow-up arrangements for breast cancer do not optimally meet the needs of individual patients. We therefore reviewed the evidence on preferences and patient involvement in decisions about breast cancer follow-up to explore the potential for personalised care., Methods: Studies published between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We then identified decision categories related to content and form of follow-up. Criteria for preference sensitiveness and patient involvement were compiled and applied to determine the extent to which decisions were sensitive to patient preferences and patients were involved., Results: Forty-one studies were included in the full-text analysis. Four decision categories were identified: "surveillance for recurrent/secondary breast cancer; consultations for physical and psychosocial effects; recurrence-risk reduction by anti-hormonal treatment; and improving quality of life after breast cancer." There was little evidence that physicians treated decisions about anti-hormonal treatment, menopausal symptoms, and follow-up consultations as sensitive to patient preferences. Decisions about breast reconstruction were considered as very sensitive to patient preferences, and patients were usually involved., Conclusion: Patients are currently not involved in all decisions that affect them during follow-up, indicating a need for improvements. Personalised follow-up care could improve resource allocation and the value of care for patients., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Cancer Care Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)