Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38103109›Full record

ArticleThe patient2024

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

Rachael L DiSantostefano, Ian P Smith, Marie Falahee, Aura Cecilia Jiménez-Moreno, Serena Oliveri, Jorien Veldwijk, G Ardine de Wit, Ellen M Janssen, Conny Berlin, Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Rachael L DiSantostefanoJanssen Research & Development LLC, 1125 Trenton Harbourton Rd, Titusville, NJ, 08560, USA. rdisanto@ITS.JNJ.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5324-6835
Ian P SmithJanssen Research & Development LLC, 1125 Trenton Harbourton Rd, Titusville, NJ, 08560, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1236-2872
Marie FalaheeRheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5928-486X
Aura Cecilia Jiménez-MorenoPatient-Centered Research, Evidera, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0488-9631
Serena OliveriApplied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, IEO IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7185-4260
Jorien VeldwijkErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4822-5068
G Ardine de WitJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1375-7657
Ellen M JanssenJanssen Research & Development LLC, 1125 Trenton Harbourton Rd, Titusville, NJ, 08560, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0405-4252
Conny BerlinNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5904-5057
Catharina G M Groothuis-OudshoornHealth Technology and Services Research, Techmed Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4875-5379

Funding

Innovative Medicines Initiative 115966
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThere 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.

methodsPreference 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.

resultsOne 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.

conclusionsAs 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.

Indexed as

Health ServicesResearch DesignHumansResearch PersonnelSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38103109
PMCPMC10894084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.