ArticleThe patient2026
Incorporating the Patient Voice into Attribute and Level Selection for a Preference Study: A Qualitative Study in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.
Article in The patient, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) following transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) is the current standard of care (SOC) for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HR-NMIBC). Several emerging therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies in combination with BCG will provide new treatment options for patients. Patient preference studies can provide quantitative evidence of the trade-offs patients are willing to make among attributes of current and emerging treatments. Qualitative research is critical to developing preference elicitation instruments that capture decision-relevant treatment attributes. This study aimed to elicit information about HR-NMIBC patients' treatment priorities and evaluate a preliminary list of attributes and levels to be used in a patient preference survey.
methodsA targeted literature review produced a preliminary list of 11 attributes. Qualitative, semi-structured, multi-method telephone interviews with 12 patients with HR-NMIBC in the USA were used to explore treatment decision drivers and assess comprehension and relevance of the attributes and levels. Patients with HR-NMIBC were recruited via patient advocacy groups. A combination of concept elicitation, cognitive debriefing, and rating and ranking exercises were used to assess patients' priorities and perspectives regarding decision-relevant treatment attributes.
resultsEfficacy (event-free survival) was the most important attribute to all patients. The risk of serious/life-threatening events was also very important to patients. The risk of experiencing bladder problems and the choice between different administration procedures (route, frequency) were also important in the context of patients' treatment choices. The preliminary list of attributes and levels was subsequently refined to reflect patient priorities and incorporate feedback from expert advisors.
conclusionsThis is the first study, to our knowledge, that provides qualitative evidence regarding patients' preference for potential future treatment options for HR-NMIBC. Findings will inform the final selection and framing of attributes and levels to be included in an upcoming benefit-risk preference study. Future research is warranted to quantify any trade-offs that patients with HR-NMIBC are willing to make regarding administration, benefit, and risk attributes.
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.