ArticleThe patient2026
Treatment Preferences for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Harbin, China: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Patients, Caregivers, and Hematologists.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to quantify the preferences and trade-offs of Chinese patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), primary caregivers, and hematologists regarding key treatment attributes, and to explore heterogeneity in preferences across and within groups.
methodsA discrete choice experiment with five attributes (complete remission rate, quality of life during treatment, long-term side effects, route of administration, and monthly treatment cost) was conducted. Between November 2025 and February 2026, patients with AML and their caregivers were recruited from two tertiary hospitals in Harbin, China; hematologists were recruited via an online survey. Preference weights were estimated using conditional logit models. Relative attribute importance and willingness to pay (WTP) were calculated, and preference heterogeneity was examined using a hierarchical Bayes model.
resultsIn total, 109 patients, 112 caregivers, and 85 hematologists were included. All three groups ranked complete remission rate as the most important attribute. Hematologists' WTP for an improvement in remission rate from 65% to 80% (CNY 50,410) was approximately twice that of patients (CNY 25,890) and caregivers (CNY 23,360). Preference weights and WTP for quality of life during treatment were comparable across groups. Patients and caregivers placed greater relative importance on monthly treatment cost (both 21%) than did hematologists (17%). Probability simulations showed that patients and caregivers shifted more strongly toward regimens with more favorable quality-of-life and side-effect profiles as these advantages increased, whereas hematologists showed a smaller change in choice probability. Subgroup analyses indicated that income, prior treatment experience, education level, and residential area were significant sources of preference heterogeneity among patients and caregivers.
conclusionsAML patients, caregivers, and hematologists consistently prioritized treatment efficacy but differed in the trade-offs made between remission benefit and economic burden. Shared decision making in AML should integrate quality of life, economic affordability, and long-term side effects, and account for individual variation in patient and family values.
Identifiers
42722966What 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.