ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2026
Preferences for Obesity Medications Among People With Overweight or Obesity in the United States: A Discrete-Choice Experiment (OPTIC).
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Semaglutide 25 mg Oral Versus Semaglutide 2.4 mg Injectable: An Indirect Treatment Comparison of Weight Loss Outcomes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Trial
- Preferences for Obesity Medications Among People With Overweight or Obesity in the United States: A Discrete-Choice Experiment (OPTIC).Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
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
aimsTo evaluate the relative importance of attributes driving obesity medication (OM) choice and preferences among individuals with overweight or obesity. MATERIALS AND
methodsUS adults with obesity or overweight and ≥ 1 obesity-related complication completed an online survey including a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) in October-November 2025. In the DCE, participants chose between 2 hypothetical, experimentally designed OM profiles with attributes/levels related to efficacy, cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction, side effects, administration (route/frequency), and dosing instruction requirements. In a fixed-choice comparison, participants chose between 2 predefined oral OM profiles. Relative preference weights for the DCE attribute levels were estimated using a random-parameters logit model to estimate attribute importance, tradeoffs, and predicted treatment choice.
resultsAmong 800 participants (400 OM-naïve/400 OM-experienced, 400 injection-naïve/400 injection-experienced), the most important attributes were route of administration, average weight-loss percentage, CV risk reduction, and the proportion of people achieving ≥ 20% weight loss. Dosing instructions had the lowest relative importance. There was a preference for 1 OM profile (Treatment A-a hypothetical oral semaglutide-like profile) over the alternative OM profile (Treatment B-a hypothetical orforglipron-like profile), according to the responses from the DCE (84.2% vs. 15.8%) and the fixed-choice question (90.0% vs. 10.0%). Only 23.4% indicated that taking an OM treatment on an empty stomach and waiting 30 min to eat would be disruptive to their lives. Most (73.3%) OM-naïve participants were open to taking an oral OM.
conclusionsIndividuals with overweight or obesity prioritise weight-loss efficacy, CV risk reduction, and oral administration in OM treatment decisions; dosing instruction requirements were of low importance.
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.