Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveRandomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients’ preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined.DesignSystematic review and meta-analyses.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed.ResultsIn total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%–100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%–99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI −0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502).ConclusionsPatients’ preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019094438.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the few cancers in which a continued increase in incidence has been observed over several years. As such, there has been a focus on safe and accurate diagnosis and the development of treatment algorithms that take into consideration the unique complexities of this patient population. In the past decade, there have been improvements in nonsurgical treatment platforms and better standardization with respect to the diagnosis and patient eligibility for liver transplant. How to navigate patients through the challenges of treatment is difficult and depends on several factors: 1) patient-related variables such as comorbid conditions that influence treatment eligibility; 2) liver-related variables such as Child-Pugh score; and 3) tumor-related variables such as size, number, pattern of spread within the liver, and vascular involvement. The objectives of this review are to put into perspective the current treatment options for patients with HCC, the unique advantages and disadvantages of each treatment approach, and the evidence that supports the introduction of sorafenib into the multidisciplinary management of HCC. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Background Effective techniques for eliciting patients’ preferences regarding their own care, when treatment options offer marginal gains and different risks, is an important clinical need. We sought to evaluate the association between patients’ considerations of the time burdens of care (“time toxicity”) with decisions about hypothetical treatment options. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, mixed-methods study that evaluated patients’ attitudes and preferences toward palliative-intent cancer treatments that delayed imaging progression-free survival (PFS) but did not improve overall survival (OS). We classified participants based on if they spontaneously volunteered one or more consideration of time burdens during qualitative interviews after treatment trade-off exercises. We compared the percentage of participants who opted for treatments with no PFS gain, some PFS gain, or who declined treatment regardless of PFS gain (in the absence of OS benefit). We conducted narrative analysis of themes related to time burdens. Results The study cohort included 100 participants with advanced cancer (55% women, 63% age > 60 years, 38% with gastrointestinal cancer, and 80% currently receiving cancer-directed treatment. Forty-six percent (46/100) spontaneously described time burdens as a factor they considered in making treatment decisions. Participants who mentioned time (vs not) had higher thresholds for PFS gains required for choosing additional treatments (P value .004). Participants who mentioned time were more likely to decline treatments with no OS benefit irrespective of the magnitude of PFS benefit (65%, vs 31%). On qualitative analysis, we found that time burdens are influenced by several treatment-related factors and have broad-ranging impact, and illustrate how patients’ experiences with time burdens and their preferences regarding time influence their decisions. Conclusions Almost half of participating patients spontaneously raised the issue of time burdens of cancer care when making hypothetical treatment decisions. These patients had notable differences in treatment preferences compared to those who did not mention considerations of time. Decision science researchers and clinicians should consider time burdens as an important attribute in research and in clinic. Effective techniques for eliciting patients’ preferences regarding their own care, when treatment options offer marginal gains, is an important clinical need. This article evaluates the association between patients’ considerations of the time burdens of care (“time toxicity”) with decisions about hypothetical treatment options.

Background Patients have a unique role in deciding what treatments should be available for them and regulatory agencies should take their preferences into account when making treatment approval decisions. This is the first study designed to obtain quantitative patient-preference evidence to inform regulatory approval decisions by the Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Methods Five-hundred and forty United States adults with body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m 2 evaluated tradeoffs among effectiveness, safety, and other attributes of weight-loss devices in a scientific survey. Discrete-choice experiments were used to quantify the importance of safety, effectiveness, and other attributes of weight-loss devices to obese respondents. A tool based on these measures is being used to inform benefit-risk assessments for premarket approval of medical devices. Results Respondent choices yielded preference scores indicating their relative value for attributes of weight-loss devices in this study. We developed a tool to estimate the minimum weight loss acceptable by a patient to receive a device with a given risk profile and the maximum mortality risk tolerable in exchange for a given weight loss. For example, to accept a device with 0.01 % mortality risk, a risk tolerant patient will require about 10 % total body weight loss lasting 5 years. Conclusions Patient preference evidence was used make regulatory decision making more patient-centered. In addition, we captured the heterogeneity of patient preferences allowing market approval of effective devices for risk tolerant patients. CDRH is using the study tool to define minimum clinical effectiveness to evaluate new weight-loss devices. The methods presented can be applied to a wide variety of medical products. This study supports the ongoing development of a guidance document on incorporating patient preferences into medical-device premarket approval decisions.

In absence of a COVID-19 vaccine, testing, contact tracing and social restrictions are among the most powerful strategies adopted around the world to slow down the spread of the pandemic. Citizens of most countries are suffering major physical, psychological and economic distress. At this stage, a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine is the most sustainable option to manage the current pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy by even a small subset of the population can undermine the success of this strategy. The objective of this research is to investigate the vaccine characteristics that matter the most to Australian citizens and to explore the potential uptake of a COVID-19 vaccine in Australia. Through a stated preference experiment, preferences towards a COVID-19 vaccine of 2136 residents of the Australian states and territories were collected and analysed via a latent class model. Results show that preferences for mild adverse cases, mode of administration, location of administration, price and effectiveness are heterogeneous. Conversely, preferences for immediacy and severe reactions are homogeneous, with respondents preferring a shorter period until vaccine is available and lower instances of severe side effects. The expected uptake of the vaccine is estimated under three different scenarios, with the value of 86% obtained for an average scenario. By calculating individual preferences, the willingness to pay is estimated for immediacy, effectiveness, mild and severe side effects.

Purpose Receiving a cancer diagnosis significantly impacts patients’ lives, and how the bad news is delivered influences patients’ trajectory, psychosocial adjustment and openness to psycho-oncological support. We explored how patients’ experiences, reactions and preferences were when receiving the news and which optimization recommendations can be made. Methods We conducted an exploratory qualitative study with patients who enrolled in the new integrated cross-sectoral psycho-oncological care programme ‘isPO’, being enrolled 12 months post-diagnosis. Data on the main issue (i.e. perception of the moment when the diagnosis is received) were collected via telephone interviews that were fully audiotaped and transcribed. Two independent coders conducted inductive content analyses using MAXQDA. Results Out of 38 approached patients, 23 cancer patients with 13 different tumour entities participated. They had a mean age of 54.2 (SD 16.2); n  = 17 (74%) were female. Three major themes with 14 corresponding subthemes emerged: (1) patients’ experiences with the bad news delivery, including setting, mode, preparation and perceived needs; (2) patients’ reactions to the bad news, such as shock, fear and helplessness, disbelief and denial, anger and feeling of injustice, thankfulness and depression; and (3) patients’ receiving preferences, including psycho-oncological support, addressing informational needs, needs-driven comprehensive support and a competent multidisciplinary support team. Conclusions The quality of bad news delivery and addressing patients’ needs should be strongly considered by physicians. We recommend integrating patients’ perspective on the quality management processes of breaking bad news. For providing needs-centred high-quality care, applying existing guidelines and acquiring patient-centred communication skills are central.

BackgroundOne-quarter of U.S. patients do not have a primary care provider or do not have complete access to one. Work and personal responsibilities also compete with finding convenient, accessible care. Telehealth services facilitate patients’ access to care, but whether patients are satisfied with telehealth is unclear.ObjectiveWe assessed patients’ satisfaction with and preference for telehealth visits in a telehealth program at CVS MinuteClinics.DesignCross-sectional patient satisfaction survey.ParticipantsPatients were aged ≥18 years, presented at a MinuteClinic offering telehealth in January–September 2014, had symptoms suitable for telehealth consultation, and agreed to a telehealth visit when the on-site practitioner was busy.Main MeasuresPatients reported their age, gender, and whether they had health insurance and/or a primary care provider. Patients rated their satisfaction with seeing diagnostic images, hearing and seeing the remote practitioner, the assisting on-site nurse’s capability, quality of care, convenience, and overall understanding. Patients ranked telehealth visits compared to traditional ones: better (defined as preferring telehealth), just as good (defined as liking telehealth), or worse. Predictors of preferring or liking telehealth were assessed via multivariate logistic regression.Key resultsIn total, 1734 (54 %) of 3303 patients completed the survey: 70 % were women, and 41 % had no usual place of care. Between 94 and 99 % reported being “very satisfied” with all telehealth attributes. One-third preferred a telehealth visit to a traditional in-person visit. An additional 57 % liked telehealth. Lack of medical insurance increased the odds of preferring telehealth (OR = 0.83, 95 % CI, 0.72–0.97). Predictors of liking telehealth were female gender (OR = 1.68, 1.04–2.72) and being very satisfied with their overall understanding of telehealth (OR = 2.76, 1.84–4.15), quality of care received (OR = 2.34, 1.42–3.87), and telehealth’s convenience (OR = 2.87, 1.09–7.94)ConclusionsPatients reported high satisfaction with their telehealth experience. Convenience and perceived quality of care were important to patients, suggesting that telehealth may facilitate access to care.

Background In response to climate change (CC), medicine needs to consider new aspects in health counselling of patients. Such climate-sensitive health counselling (CSHC) may include counselling patients on preventing and coping with climate-sensitive diseases or on leading healthy and climate-friendly lifestyles. This study aimed to identify previous participation in and preferences for CSHC as well as associated sociodemographic and attitudinal factors among the general public in Germany. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study in a population-based online panel in five German federal states (04–06/2022). We performed descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analysis to assess prior participation in CSHC and content preferences regarding CSHC, as well as associations between sociodemographic variables and general preference for CSHC. Results Among 1491 participants (response rate 47.1%), 8.7% explicitly reported having participated in CSHC, while 39.9% had discussed at least one CSHC-related topic with physicians. In the studied sample, 46.7% of participants would like CSHC to be part of the consultation with their physician, while 33.9% rejected this idea. Participants aged 21 to 40 years (versus 51 to 60), individuals alarmed about CC (versus concerned/cautious/disengaged/doubtful/dismissive), and those politically oriented to the left (vs. centre or right) showed greater preference for CSHC in the multivariable regression model. Most participants wanted to talk about links to their personal health (65.1%) as opposed to links to the health of all people (33.2%). Conclusions Almost half of the participants in this sample would like to receive CSHC, especially those who are younger, more alarmed about CC and more politically oriented to the left. More research and training on patient-centred implementation of CSHC is needed.

Objective Active patient involvement and attention to patient preferences in patient-provider consultations are increasingly recognized as essential to improve patient satisfaction and outcomes. Aim of the review was to provide an overview of questionnaires that measure patient preferences regarding communication, information provision and involvement in decision-making in patient-provider consultations. Methods Inclusion criteria were studies that provided primary data, were published in German or English, and included adult patients. The systematic search was conducted in PubMed and PsycInfo. Data extraction and summary focused on information about the development process, topic and structure, and reliability of instruments. Results Of 6,667 abstracts screened, 34 articles were included, describing 37 different instruments, often originating from an Anglo-American context. Twelve articles reported patient involvement in the development process. Majority of questionnaires measures aspects of information and/or decision-making preferences. Fewer instruments focus on patient-centeredness or communication preferences. Length of questionnaires varied from one to 80 items. Only 15 studies reported reliability indices. Conclusion Due to the heterogeneous description, a more consistent reporting of data would be desirable for future publications as well as more participatory research. Practice implications Although there is a wide range of questionnaires available, more research is needed to determine the extent to which they can be used in everyday clinical practice to elicit preferences from individual patients with a wide range of conditions and cultural backgrounds.

Background Incorporating patient preference (PP) information into decision-making has become increasingly important to many stakeholders. However, there is little guidance on which patient preference assessment methods, including preference exploration (qualitative) and elicitation (quantitative) methods, are most suitable for decision-making at different stages in the medical product lifecycle (MPLC). This study aimed to use an empirical approach to assess which attributes of PP assessment methods are most important, and to identify which methods are most suitable, for decision-makers’ needs during different stages in the MPLC. Methods A four-step cumulative approach was taken: 1) Identify important criteria to appraise methods through a Q-methodology exercise, 2) Determine numerical weights to ascertain the relative importance of each criterion through an analytical hierarchy process, 3) Assess the performance of 33 PP methods by applying these weights, consulting international health preference research experts and review of literature, and 4) Compare and rank the methods within taxonomy groups reflecting their similar techniques to identify the most promising methods. Results The Q-methodology exercise was completed by 54 stakeholders with PP study experience, and the analytical hierarchy process was completed by 85 stakeholders with PP study experience. Additionally, 17 health preference research experts were consulted to assess the performance of the PP methods. Thirteen promising preference exploration and elicitation methods were identified as likely to meet decision-makers’ needs. Additionally, eight other methods that decision-makers might consider were identified, although they appeared appropriate only for some stages of the MPLC. Conclusions This transparent, weighted approach to the comparison of methods supports decision-makers and researchers in selecting PP methods most appropriate for a given application.