Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Multiple Myeloma (MM) is a cancer characterised by the proliferation of malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow. This study examined the treatment preferences of people living with MM compared to the treatment preferences of other groups involved in treatment decision making, including carers, as well as physicians and nurses who treat people living with MM in Australia. Methods Data were collected using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) through an online survey. The DCEs presented participants with a traditional treatment generic choice experiment (e.g., treatment A vs treatment B), focusing on the clinical benefits of treatments and the associated risks. The attributes and levels of the attributes were selected based on previous research, literature review, qualitative research and expert opinion. The DCE data were modelled using a Latent Class Model (LCM). Results The model revealed significant heterogeneity in preferences for treatment attributes. In particular, overall survival, remission period and annual out of pocket cost were the attributes with the most variation. In comparison to people living with MM, carers were less cost-sensitive and more concerned with quality of life (remission period). Physicians and nurses were generally more concerned with overall survival and more cost sensitive than people living with MM. Conclusions This study demonstrated that not all people living with MM valued the same treatment attributes equally. Further, not all groups involved in MM treatment decision making had preference alignment on all treatment attributes. This has important implications for healthcare policy decisions and shared decision making. Results from this study could be used to guide decisions around the value of new MM medicines or the medical plan surrounding the needs of those living with MM, as well as those caring for them.

Background Long‐acting somatostatin analogues (LA SSAs) are commonly used as first‐line treatment in well‐differentiated low and intermediate grade 1–2 gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP‐NETs). As a long‐term treatment option for NETs, treatment preferences should be taken into consideration. The objective of this study is to evaluate the relative importance of different LA SSA treatment features among patients with NETs, clinicians and nurses in Australia. Methods A discrete choice experiment (DCE) method was used to analyse treatment preferences for NETs, embedded in an online survey. Participants could choose between three hypothetical treatment options: ‘deep subcutaneous injectable treatment’, ‘deep intramuscular injectable treatment’, ‘oral treatment’; and an opt‐out. Each option was described by seven attributes: ‘Progression free survival’ (PFS), ‘symptom control for diarrhoea and flushing’, ‘risk of gastrointestinal (GI) side effects’, ‘frequency of administration’, ‘treatment administration,’ ‘treatment delivery,’ and ‘availability of patient support’. A Mixed Multinomial Logit model (MMNL) was used for analysis. Results A total of 54 patients with NETs, 27 clinicians, and 9 nurses completed the DCE (of 33, 26 and 20 planned respectively). The statistical model showed an overall preference for oral administration. ‘PFS’ was the most important attribute, followed by ‘symptom control for diarrhoea and flushing’ and ‘risk of GI side effects’. ‘PFS’ and ‘symptom control for diarrhoea and flushing’ were also found to be more important to healthcare professionals (HCPs, i.e., clinicians and nurses) than patients with NETs, while the attributes ‘symptom control for diarrhoea and flushing’ and ‘risk of GI side effects’ were found to be more important in non‐metropolitan areas (vs. metropolitan areas). Conclusions Analysis showed how patients with NETs and HCPs prioritise treatment attributes for NETs differently. Because the duration of use of LA SSA for the treatment of NETs is often long, these differences highlight the importance of involving the patient when making treatment decisions.

Simon Fifer, Lili Toh Community and Patient Preference Research (CaPPRe) Pty Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales, AustraliaCorrespondence: Simon Fifer, Community and Patient Preference Research (CaPPRe), Level 20, 25 Bligh Street, Sydney, New South Wales, 2000, Australia, Tel +61 403 862 091, Email simon.fifer@cappre.com.au

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. 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\"). 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. 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.

Myeloma is an incurable life-threatening hematological cancer. Recent treatment developments have seen improvements in survival; however, while patients are living longer, they are living with symptoms and treatment side effects. To evaluate myeloma patients' preferences for treatment using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). This study set out to define the relative importance of key treatment attributes, characterize the risk-benefit trade-offs in patients' decision-making, and to analyze the predictive power of basic demographic factors. Four hundred seventy-five myeloma patients in the UK were invited to participate by Myeloma UK. Data were collected using DCEs through an online survey. The DCEs presented patients with 10 choice scenarios, each with 2 treatment options described by 7 attributes, and a \"no treatment\" option. The DCE data were modelled using a latent class model (LCM). The effects of demographic characteristics were also examined. Not surprisingly, average survival was most important to all patients but there were significant contrasts between the class preferences. The LCM revealed two classes of patients. Patients in Class 1 placed greater importance on average survival and mild-to-moderate side effects, whereas patients in Class 2 focused on the mode of administration and the average out-of-pocket costs. Patients living with others and those diagnosed in the last 5 years were more likely to be in Class 1. Different treatment features were not valued equally among all myeloma patients. This has important implications for healthcare policy decisions and could be used to guide decisions around the value of new myeloma medicines.

Background Multiple pharmacotherapy options are available to control blood glucose in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Patients and prescribers may have different preferences for T2DM treatment attributes, such as mode and frequency of administration, based on their experiences and beliefs which may impact adherence. As adherence is a pivotal issue in diabetes therapy, it is important to understand what patients value and how they trade-off the risks and benefits of new treatments. This study aims to investigate the key drivers of choice for T2DM treatments, with a focus on injection frequency, and explore patients’ associated willingness-to-pay. Methods A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to present patients with a series of trade-offs between different treatment options, injectable and oral medicines that were made up of 10 differing levels of attributes (frequency and mode of administration, weight change, needle type, storage, nausea, injection site reactions, hypoglycaemic events, instructions with food and cost). A sample of 171 Australian consenting adult T2DM patients, of which 58 were receiving twice-daily injections of exenatide and 113 were on oral glucose-lowering treatments, completed the national online survey. An error components model was used to estimate the relative priority and key drivers of choice patients place on different attributes and to estimate their willingness to pay for new treatments. Results Injection frequency, weight change, and nausea were shown to be important attributes for patients receiving injections. Within this cohort, a once-weekly injection generated an additional benefit over a twice-daily injection, equivalent to a weighted total willingness to pay of AUD$22.35 per month. Conclusions Based on the patient preferences, the importance of frequency of administration and other non-health benefits can be valued. Understanding patient preferences has an important role in health technology assessment, as the identification of the value as well as the importance weighting for each treatment attribute may assist with funding decisions beyond clinical trial outcomes.

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.

Purpose: To examine the treatment and long-term outcome preferences for people living with schizophrenia. Patients and Methods: Sixty-six Australian adults, living with schizophrenia completed a novel online survey with six sections: Demographic characteristics; Disease history; Quality-of-life; Patient support programmes; Discrete Choice Experiment, and Best-Worst Scaling exercise. Results: Participants indicated that they preferred to be involved in treatment decision with their doctor. A minority of participants reported having been previously involved in a patient support programme (28.8%) and only one in six participants had a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) package (16.7%) with over a third of participants indicating that they were ineligible (37.9%). Participants' average quality-of-life score was 60%. Conclusion: Recent hospitalisation influenced the relative importance of treatment attributes, with effectiveness on hearing voices being the most important treatment attribute. The most important long-term goals were having a stable place to live, being independent, and physical health. People with schizophrenia care about their long-term functional recovery outcomes, rating symptom control and independence as their highest priority. They want to be part of the treatment conversation with their doctors. Therefore, psychiatrists are encouraged to use shared decision-making to establish the treatment course that best aligns with individuals' long-term goals. Keywords: discrete choice experiment, patient preference, patient value mapping, schizophrenia, shared decision-making, treatment goals

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.

To better understand what is most important to people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) when choosing their treatment. We assessed how PLWH trade off the potential risks and benefits of oral and long acting injectable (LAI) treatments. Firstly, in-depth interviews were conducted with 11 PLWH to develop a holistic understanding of experiences and determine attributes that contribute to treatment decision-making. Secondly, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to understand the treatment preferences for PLWH with n = 99 PLWH aged 18 years or over with a diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and who were currently using anti-retroviral therapy (ART). Study participants were presented with 12 scenarios and asked to select their preferred treatment among two hypothetical injectable treatment alternatives, \"injection 1\" and \"injection 2\" and their current oral ART treatment. The DCE data were modelled using a latent class model (LCM). The model revealed significant heterogeneity in preferences for treatment attributes among study participants. Two segments/classes of PLWH were identified. The first segment expressed a strong preference for their current oral treatment; the second segment showed strong preference for the injection treatment and for it to be administered in a GP clinic. Overall, out-of-pocket cost was the most important attribute for participants. One-third of PLWH were willing to switch to an LAI. Not all PLWH valued the same treatment attributes equally. Overall, out-of-pocket costs for treatments were considered by respondents as the most determining factor in making treatment choices. Results have important implications for healthcare policy and will serve to better inform patients and stakeholders involved in the treatment decision-making process about the treatment preferences of PLWH. Clinicians are encouraged to consider shared decision-making to establish the treatment course that best aligns with PLWH's treatment goals.