ArticleNeurology and therapy2025
Treatment Preferences of Physicians Treating Adult Patients with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in the United States and Canada: A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in Neurology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFactors influencing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment preferences have been studied among patients but not physicians in the United States (US) and Canada. This study assessed treatment preferences of physicians treating adult patients with ADHD in both countries.
methodsAn online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted (October 4-20, 2023) among physicians from Dynata's US and Canadian panel who treated adult patients with ADHD. Preference weights for efficacy (improvement in ADHD symptoms) and safety [risks of adverse events (AEs)] attributes were estimated using a conditional logistic regression model, and were used to calculate the willingness to trade-off and relative importance of the attributes.
resultsAmong 510 US and 347 Canadian physicians (64.1% and 69.2% male, respectively), improvement in ADHD symptoms had a significant positive impact, and the risks of AEs (except the risk of feeling jittery in Canada) had a significant negative impact on physician preferences for ADHD treatments. US physicians were willing to tradeoff 0.44, 0.35, 0.20, 0.17, and 0.17 percentage points of improvement in ADHD symptoms to avoid a one-percentage-point risk of insomnia, nausea, feeling jittery, anxiety, and dry mouth, respectively; among Canadian physicians, these were 0.31, 0.21, 0.12, 0.20, and 0.07, respectively. The relative importance of the efficacy versus safety attributes (i.e., the risks of AEs included in the DCE taken together) was 45.5% versus 54.5% in the US and 56.3% versus 43.7% in Canada.
conclusionEfficacy was the most important single attribute for physicians treating adult patients with ADHD in both the US and Canada; however, the risks of AEs taken together had greater relative importance than efficacy alone among US but not Canadian physicians. These findings highlight potential discrepancies in physician and patient preferences based on existing evidence and underscore the importance of shared decision-making, which may in turn increase patients' treatment satisfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.