Using Separate Single-Outcome Risk Presentations Instead of Integrated Multioutcome Formats Improves Comprehension in Discrete Choice Experiments.

INTRODUCTION: Despite decades of research on risk-communication approaches, questions remain about the optimal methods for conveying risks for different outcomes across multiple time points, which can be necessary in applications such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs). We sought to compare the effects of 3 design factors: 1) separated versus integrated presentations of the risks for different outcomes, 2) use or omission of icon arrays, and 3) vertical versus horizontal orientation of the time dimension. METHODS: We conducted a randomized study among a demographically diverse sample of 2,242 US adults recruited from an online panel (mean age 59.8 y, s = 10.4 y; 21.9% African American) that compared risk-communication approaches that varied in the 3 factors noted above. The primary outcome was the number of correct responses to 12 multiple-choice questions asking survey respondents to identify specific numbers, contrast options to recognize dominance (larger v. smaller risks), and compute differences. We used linear regression to test the effects of the 3 design factors, controlling for health literacy, graph literacy, and numeracy. We also measured choice consistency in a subsequent DCE choice module. RESULTS: Mean comprehension varied significantly across versions (P < 0.001), with higher comprehension in the 3 versions that provided separated risk information for each risk. In the multivariable regression, separated risk presentation was associated with 0.58 more correct responses (P < 0.001; 95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.77) compared with integrated risk information. Neither providing icon arrays nor using vertical versus horizontal time formats affected comprehension rates, although participant understanding did correlate with DCE choice consistency. CONCLUSIONS: In presentations of multiple risks over multiple time points, presenting risk information separately for each health outcome appears to increase understanding. HIGHLIGHTS: When conveying information about risks of different outcomes at multiple time points, separate presentations of single-outcome risks resulted in higher comprehension than presentations that combined risk information for different outcomes.We also observed benefits of presenting single-outcome risks separately among respondents with lower numeracy and graph literacy.Study participants who scored higher on risk understanding were more internally consistent in their responses to a discrete choice experiment.

Patient preferences for the treatment of chronic cough: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Chronic cough is common, negatively affects quality of life and has limited treatment options. Inhibition of purinergic signalling is a promising therapeutic approach but is associated with taste-related adverse effects. Little is known about treatment preferences from the perspective of patients with chronic cough, such as trade-offs between efficacy and side effect. METHODS: Patients with chronic cough completed an online discrete choice experiment survey in which they answered a series of questions requiring a choice between two constructed treatment options characterised by varying attribute levels. Selection of cough and taste-related attributes was informed by qualitative interviews and clinical trial data. Logit-based models were used to analyse resulting choice data. RESULTS: The discrete choice experiment survey was completed by 472 participants with chronic cough. Among study attributes, frequency of intense cough attacks was the most important to participants, followed by taste change, frequency of night-time coughing and frequency of daytime coughing. To accept the least preferred taste disturbance of a bitter, metallic, chalky or oily taste change, participants required either: (1) elimination of night-time cough along with a slight reduction in daytime cough; (2) elimination of daytime cough along with a pronounced reduction in night-time or (3) reduction in intense cough attacks from 7 to 2 times per week. Two distinct preference patterns were identified, each placing different importance on efficacy versus side effect trade-offs. CONCLUSIONS: Participants with chronic cough were willing to accept some taste disturbances in exchange for improved efficacy of chronic cough treatments. Knowledge of patient preferences can facilitate shared decision-making.

How Much Better is Faster? Value Adjustments for Health-Improvement Sequences.

While the quality-adjusted life-year construct has advantages of simplicity and consistency, simplicity requires strong assumptions. In particular, standard assumptions result in health-state utility functions that are unrealistically linear and separable in risk and duration. Consequently, sequencing of a series of health improvements has no effect on the total value of the sequence because each increment is assessed independently of previous increments. Utility functions in nearly all other areas of applied economics are assumed to be nonlinear with diminishing marginal utility so it matters where an improvement occurs in a sequence. We construct a conceptual framework that that demonstrates how diminishing marginal utility for health improvements could affect preferences for different sequence patterns. Using this framework, we derive conditions for which the sum of conventional health-state utilities understates, overstates, or approximates the sequence-sensitive value of health improvements. These patterns suggest the direction and magnitude of possible adjustments to conventional value calculations. We provide numerical examples and identify recent studies whose results are consistent with the conceptual model.

How Does the Public Evaluate Vaccines for Low-Incidence, Severe-Outcome Diseases? A General-Population Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Because immunizing large numbers of healthy people could be required to reduce a relatively small number of infections, disease incidence has a large impact on cost effectiveness, even if the infection is associated with very serious health outcomes. In addition to cost effectiveness, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices requires evidence of stakeholders' values and preferences to help inform vaccine recommendations. This study quantified general-population preferences for vaccine trade-offs among disease severity, disease incidence, and other vaccine features. METHODS: We developed a best-practice discrete choice experiment survey and administered it to 1185 parents of children aged 12-23 years and 1203 young adults aged 18-25 years from a national opt-in consumer panel. The data were analyzed using exploded-logit latent-class analysis. RESULTS: Latent-class analysis identified two classes with similar relative-importance weights in both samples. One of the two classes represented about half the samples and had preferences consistent with well-structured, logically ordered, and acceptably precise stated-preference utility. Preferences for the other half of the samples were poorly defined over the ranges of vaccine and disease attributes evaluated. Both parents and young adults in the first class evaluated protection from a disease with 1 in 100 incidence and full recovery at home as having statistically the same preference utility as a disease with 1 in 1 million incidence requiring hospitalization and resulting in permanent deafness. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that vaccines that protect against low-incidence, severe-outcome diseases, provide 'peace of mind' benefits not captured by standard health-outcome metrics. The fact that half the respondents had poorly defined vaccine preferences is a reminder of the challenges of implementing patient-centric vaccine decision making.

Patient-Preference Diagnostics: Adapting Stated-Preference Methods to Inform Effective Shared Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: While clinical practice guidelines underscore the need to incorporate patient preferences in clinical decision making, incorporating meaningful assessment of patient preferences in clinical encounters is challenging. Structured approaches that combine quantitative patient preferences and clinical evidence could facilitate effective patient-provider communication and more patient-centric health care decisions. Adaptive conjoint or stated-preference approaches can identify individual preference parameters, but they can require a relatively large number of choice questions or simplifying assumptions about the error with which preferences are elicited. METHOD: We propose an approach to efficiently diagnose preferences of patients for outcomes of treatment alternatives by leveraging prior information on patient preferences to generate adaptive choice questions to identify a patient's proximity to known preference phenotypes. This information can be used for measuring sensitivity and specificity, much like any other diagnostic procedure. We simulated responses with varying levels of choice errors for hypothetical patients with specific preference profiles to measure sensitivity and specificity of a 2-question preference diagnostic. RESULTS: We identified 4 classes representing distinct preference profiles for patients who participated in a previous first-time anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD) survey. Posterior probabilities of class membership at the end of a 2-question sequence ranged from 87% to 89%. We found that specificity and sensitivity of the 2-question sequences were robust to respondent errors. The questions appeared to have better specificity than sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that this approach could help diagnose patient preferences for treatments for a condition such as FTASD with acceptable precision using as few as 2 choice questions. Such preference-diagnostic tools could be used to improve and document alignment of treatment choices and patient preferences. HIGHLIGHTS: Approaches that combine patient preferences and clinical evidence can facilitate effective patient-provider communication and more patient-centric healthcare decisions. However, diagnosing individual-level preferences is challenging, and no formal diagnostic tools exist.We propose a structured approach to efficiently diagnose patient preferences based on prior information on the distribution of patient preferences in a population.We generated a 2-question test of preferences for the outcomes associated with the treatment of first-time anterior shoulder dislocation.The diagnosis of preferences can help physicians discuss relevant aspects of the treatment options and proactively address patient concerns during the clinical encounter.

Patient preferences pertaining to treatment options for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patient acceptability of benefit-risk trade-offs in selecting treatment options for drug-resistant mesial temporal lobe epilepsy, including open brain surgery, laser ablation (laser interstitial thermal therapy [LITT]), and continued medications. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment survey was developed, consisting of 20 versions that were randomly assigned to respondents. Each version had 8 sets of constructed treatment alternatives, representing open brain surgery, LITT, or continued medical management. For each set, respondents indicated the treatment alternative they would choose first. Treatment alternatives were characterized by varying levels of chance of seizure freedom for at least 2 years (20-70%), risk of 30-day mortality (0-10%), and risk of neurological deficits (0-40%). Respondents' choices were analyzed using random-parameters logit models to quantify acceptable benefit-risk trade-offs. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated using latent-class analysis. RESULTS: The survey was administered to 2 cohorts of adult patients with drug-resistant epilepsy: a Duke cohort identified using diagnostic codes (n = 106) and a web-recruited panel with a self-reported physician diagnosis of drug-resistant epilepsy (n = 300). Based on mean preference weights, respondents who indicated a willingness to consider surgical intervention would accept a reduction in chance of seizure freedom from 70% to a minimum-acceptable benefit (MAB) of 23% if they could undergo LITT rather than open brain surgery. For a reduction in 30-day mortality from 1% to 0%, MAB was 52%. For a reduction in risk of long-term deficits from 10% to 0%, MAB was 39%. Latent-class analysis revealed additional choice patterns identifying respondent groups that more strongly favored continuing medications or undergoing surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients who are receptive to surgery would accept significantly lower treatment effectiveness to undergo a minimally invasive procedure relative to open brain surgery. They also were willing to accept lower treatment benefit to reduce risks of mortality or neurological deficits.

Women's Willingness to Accept Risks of Medication for Inflammatory Bowel Disease During Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) face difficult decisions regarding treatment during pregnancy: while the majority of IBD medications are safe, there is substantial societal pressure to avoid exposures during pregnancy. However, discontinuation of IBD medications risks a disease flare occurring during pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: This study quantified women's knowledge about pregnancy and IBD and their willingness to accept the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes to avoid disease activity or medication use during pregnancy. METHODS: Women with IBD recruited from four centers completed an online discrete-choice experiment stated-preference study including eight choice tasks and the Crohn's and Colitis Pregnancy Knowledge questionnaire. Random-parameters logit was used to estimate preferences for both the respondent personally and what the respondent thought most women would prefer. We also tested for systematically different preferences among individuals with different demographic and personal characteristics, including IBD knowledge. The primary outcome was the maximum acceptable risk of premature birth, birth defects, or miscarriage that women with IBD were willing to accept to avoid (1) taking an IBD medication or (2) having a disease flare during pregnancy. RESULTS: Among 230 respondents, women would accept, on average, up to a 4.9% chance of miscarriage to avoid a disease flare. On average, there were no statistically significant differences in women's preferences for continuing versus avoiding medication in the absence of a flare. However, prior understanding of IBD and pregnancy significantly affected preferences for IBD medication use during pregnancy: women with "poor knowledge" would accept up to a 6.4% chance of miscarriage to avoid IBD medication use during pregnancy, whereas women with "adequate knowledge" would accept up to a 5.1% chance of miscarriage in order to remain on their medication. Respondents' personal treatment preferences did not differ from their assessment of other women's preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Women with IBD demonstrated a strong preference for avoiding disease activity during pregnancy. Knowledge regarding pregnancy and IBD was a strong modifier of preferences for continuation of IBD medications during pregnancy. These findings point to an important opportunity for intervention to improve disease control through education to increase medication adherence and alleviate unnecessary fears about IBD medication use during pregnancy.

What is a Good Death? A Choice Experiment on Care Indicators for Patients at End of Life.

CONTEXT: Health systems should aim to deliver on what matters most to patients. With respect to end of life (EOL) care, knowledge on patient preferences for care is currently lacking. OBJECTIVES: To quantify preference weights for key EOL care indicators. METHODS: We developed a discrete choice experiment survey with 13 key indicators related to patients' experience in the last six weeks of life. We fielded the survey to a web-panel of caregiver proxies for recently deceased care recipients. We obtained 250 responses in each of five countries: India, Singapore, Kenya, the UK and the US. Latent-class analysis was used to evaluate preference weights for each indicator within and across countries. RESULTS: A 2-class latent-class model was the best fit. Class 1 (average class probability = 64.7%) preference weights were logically ordered and highly significant, while Class 2 estimates were generally disordered, suggesting poor data quality. Class 1 results indicated health care providers' ability to control patients' pain to desired levels was most important (11.5%, 95% CI: 10.3%-12.6%), followed by clean, safe, and comfortable facilities (10.0%, 95% CI: 9.0%-11.0%); and kind and sympathetic health care providers (9.8%, 95% CI: 8.8%-10.9%). Providers' support for nonmedical concerns had the lowest preference weight (4.4%, 95% CI: 3.6%-5.3%). Differences in preference weights across countries were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Results reveal that not all aspects of EOL care are equally valued. Not accounting for these differences would lead to inappropriate conclusions on how best to improve EOL care.

Quantifying Benefit-Risk Preferences for Heart Failure Devices: A Stated-Preference Study.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory and clinical decisions involving health technologies require judgements about relative importance of their expected benefits and risks. We sought to quantify heart-failure patients' acceptance of therapeutic risks in exchange for improved effectiveness with implantable devices. METHODS: Individuals with heart failure recruited from a national web panel or academic medical center completed a web-based discrete-choice experiment survey in which they were randomized to one of 40 blocks of 8 experimentally controlled choice questions comprised of 2 device scenarios and a no-device scenario. Device scenarios offered an additional year of physical functioning equivalent to New York Heart Association class III or a year with improved (ie, class II) symptoms, or both, with 30-day mortality risks ranging from 0% to 15%, in-hospital complication risks ranging from 0% to 40%, and a remote adjustment device feature. Logit-based regression models fit participants' choices as a function of health outcomes, risks and remote adjustment. RESULTS: Latent-class analysis of 613 participants (mean age, 65; 49% female) revealed that two-thirds were best represented by a pro-device, more risk-tolerant class, accepting up to 9% (95% CI, 7%-11%) absolute risk of device-associated mortality for a one-year gain in improved functioning (New York Heart Association class II). Approximately 20% were best represented by a less risk-tolerant class, accepting a maximum device-associated mortality risk of 3% (95% CI, 1%-4%) for the same benefit. The remaining class had strong antidevice preferences, thus maximum-acceptable risk was not calculated. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative evidence on benefit-risk tradeoffs for implantable heart-failure device profiles may facilitate incorporating patients' views during product development, regulatory decision-making, and clinical practice.

Quantifying Value of Hope.

BACKGROUND: 'Hope' is a construct in patient-centered value frameworks, but few studies have attempted to measure the value of hope separately from treatment-related gains in quality of life and survival to support its application in economic evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To generate quantitative information on the "value of hope". METHODS: We designed a discrete-choice experiment in which treatment alternatives varied the probability of achieving 10-year survival, expected survival as the weighted sum of short-term and long-term survival, health status, and out-of-pocket cost. Two-hundred patients with cancer or history of cancer recruited by Cancer Support Community each completed 10 choice questions. We used mixed-logit and latent-class models to analyze the choice data. RESULTS: Relative to fixed survival periods of two, three or five years with 0% chance of 10-year survival, participants positively valued treatments with 5% and 10% chances of 10-year survival. However, participants negatively valued a 20% chance of 10-year survival that required an offsetting 80% chance of shorter survival. This finding was particularly strong when expected survival was two years. Compared to a 0% chance, dollar-equivalent values of 5% and 10% chances of long-term survival were $5,975 and $12,421, respectively, independent of health status or expected survival. The corresponding value for 20% versus 0% chance of long-term survival was negative. Latent-class analysis revealed 4 groups with distinct preference patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings affirm positive value for hope independent of expected survival and health status. However, this finding does not universally hold in all situations nor across all groups.

Who Would Pay Higher Taxes for Better Mental Health? Results of a Large-Sample National Choice Experiment.

Policy Points  Public funding for mental health programs must compete with other funding priorities in limited state budgets.  Valuing state-funded mental health programs in a policy-relevant context requires consideration of how much benefit from other programs the public is willing to forgo to increase mental health program benefits and how much the public is willing to be taxed for such program benefits.  Taxpayer resistance to increased taxes to pay for publicly funded mental health programs and perceived benefits of such programs vary with state population size.  In all states, taxpayers seem to support increased public funding for mental health programs such as state Medicaid services, suggesting such programs are underfunded from the perspective of the average taxpayer. CONTEXT: The direct and indirect impacts of serious mental illness (SMI) on health care systems and communities represents a significant burden. However, the value that community members place on alleviating this burden is not known, and SMI treatment must compete with a long list of other publicly funded priorities. This study defines the value of public mental health interventions as what the public would accept, either in the form of higher taxes or in reductions in nonhealth programs, in return for increases in the number of mental health program beneficiaries. METHODS: We developed and fielded a best-practice discrete-choice experiment survey to quantify respondents' willingness to be taxed for increased spending among several competing programs, including a program for treating severe mental health conditions. A realistic decision frame was used to elicit respondents' willingness to support expanded state budgets for mental health programs if that expansion required either cuts in the competing publicly financed programs or tax increases. The survey was administered to a general population national sample of 10,000 respondents. FINDINGS: Nearly half the respondents in our sample either chose "no budget increase" for all budget scenarios or had preferences that were too disordered to estimate trade-off values. Including zero values for those respondents, we found that the mean (median) amount that all respondents were willing to be taxed annually for public mental health programs ranged between $156 ($99) per year for large-population states and $343 ($181) per year for small-population states. Respondents would accept reductions of between 1.6 and 3.4 beneficiaries in other programs in return for 1 additional mental health program beneficiary. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with findings that a substantial portion of the US public is unwilling to pay higher taxes. Nevertheless, even including the substantial number of respondents who opposed any tax increase, the willingness of both the mean and median respondent to be taxed for mental health program expansions implies that programs providing mental health services such as state Medicaid are underfunded.

Incomplete information and irrelevant attributes in stated-preference values for health interventions.

Violations of the assumptions of complete information [CI] and independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) in discrete-choice experiment (DCE) data imply sensitivity of preference estimates to the decision context and the alternatives evaluated. There is a paucity of evidence on how these two assumptions affect health-preference results and whether the usual specifications of random-parameters logit models are sufficient to address these violations. We assessed the appropriateness of these assumptions in a DCE valuating interventions to prevent long-term health problems that could be identified through whole genome sequencing. A DCE survey was administered to members of a nationally representative consumer panel to elicit their preferences for options to reduce the risk of health problems. The treatment options presented (surgery, medication, and watchful waiting) and the context for the decisions elicited (severity and likelihood of the health problem) were varied experimentally to evaluate the sensitivity of preference results to such changes. We find evidence of IIA violations as the options presented to prevent health changed. Our results also are consistent with the expectation that additional substitutes decrease the monetized value of alternatives. We also find some evidence that the decision context can moderate such effects, which constitutes a new finding.

The preferences of women with ovarian cancer for oral versus intravenous recurrence regimens.

OBJECTIVE: To assess preferences of women with ovarian cancer regarding features of available anti-cancer regimens for platinum-resistant, biomarker-positive disease, with an emphasis on oral PARP inhibitor and standard intravenous (IV) chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: A discrete-choice-experiment preferences survey was designed, tested, and administered to women with ovarian cancer, with 11 pairs of treatment profiles defined using seven attributes (levels/ranges): regimen (oral daily, IV weekly, IV monthly); probability of progression-free (PFS) at 6 months (40%-60%); probability of PFS at 2 years (10%-20%); nausea (none, moderate); peripheral neuropathy (none, mild, moderate); memory problems (none, mild); and total out-of-pocket cost ($0 to $10,000). RESULTS: Of 123 participants, 38% had experienced recurrence, 25% were currently receiving chemotherapy, and 18% were currently taking a PARP inhibitor. Given attributes and levels, the relative importance weights (sum 100) were: 2-year PFS, 28; cost, 27; 6-month PFS, 19; neuropathy,14; memory problems, nausea, and regimen, all ≤5. To accept moderate neuropathy, participants required a 49% (versus 40%) chance of PFS at 6 months or 14% (versus 10%) chance at 2 years. Given a 3-way choice where PFS and cost were equal, 49% preferred a monthly IV regimen causing mild memory problems, 47% preferred an oral regimen causing moderate nausea, and 4% preferred a weekly IV regimen causing mild memory and mild neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings challenge the assumption that oral anti-cancer therapies are universally preferred by patients and demonstrate that there is no "one size fits all" regimen that is preferable to women with ovarian cancer when considering recurrence treatment regimens.

Heterogeneity in Parent Preferences for Peanut Desensitization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Recently developed peanut desensitization treatment reduces the incidence of allergic reactions, the anxiety associated with the risk of accidental exposure, and the burden of precautionary behavior. Eliciting parent preferences for tradeoffs involving treatment effectiveness, tolerability, costs, and convenience quantifies the burden of juvenile peanut allergy and the perceived value of peanut desensitization therapies. OBJECTIVE: To understand heterogeneity in parents' treatment preferences and the role of personal characteristics in explaining differences. METHODS: An Internet-based, discrete-choice experiment survey was administered to a national sample of 500 parents of children aged 4 to 17 years with peanut allergy to quantify parents' preferences for peanut desensitization therapies for their children. Latent-class, mixed-logit analysis estimated relative importance coefficients for groups of participants with distinctly different preferences. RESULTS: Parents' choice patterns fell into 1 of 4 preference subgroups: (1) Cost-sensitive, (2) Protreatment (but Side-Effect-Averse), (3) Trader, and (4) Inconsistent. Mode of administration had little relative importance across all subgroups. Characteristics associated with belonging to a given preference subgroup included parent age, child age, income, parent perception of child risk and ability to manage allergic reactions, past allergic reactions, and changes in precautionary behaviors posttreatment. CONCLUSIONS: We found distinct differences in parent preferences for tradeoffs involving effectiveness, tolerability, and costs of peanut desensitization treatments. Parents' treatment preferences help quantify the burden of juvenile peanut allergy and the perceived value of new therapies. Such information can inform patient-centric clinical and regulatory decision making.

Is Easier Better Than Harder? An Experiment on Choice Experiments for Benefit-Risk Tradeoff Preferences.

OBJECTIVES: To test the convergent validity of simple and more complex study designs in a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) of multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment preferences. METHODS: Five hundred US adults with MS completed an online DCE survey. Respondents answered 8 choice questions with pairs of constructed MS treatment profiles defined by delays in problems with walking, delays in problems with cognition, thyroid disorders, and 10-y risks of kidney failure and serious brain infection (i.e., progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy [PML]). Four hundred respondents completed choice questions using 4 levels for all attributes, except thyroid disorders with 3 levels. One hundred respondents completed choice questions using only the 2 extreme attribute levels of the 4-level version. Random-parameters logit models were used to estimate choice-model parameters. RESULTS: Respondents viewing the 4-level and 2-level versions agreed on the relative importance of the 3 most important attributes: cognition, walking, and PML. Respondents viewing the 4-level version indicated much stronger disutility for a 0% to 0.5% increase in kidney-failure risk than those viewing the 2-level version where the risk for kidney failure increased from 0% to 3%. Otherwise, utilities for other 4-level attributes were approximately linear but with significantly steeper slopes (except for cognition) than the 2-level estimates, indicating that attributes were perceived as more important as the number of levels increased. CONCLUSIONS: Although the relative importance of some attributes was similar, the 2-level and 4-level versions generally failed to demonstrate convergent validity. If the study goal is attribute rankings, a 2-level version could be adequate. If goals include quantifying tradeoffs among attribute levels, more complex designs can help respondents discriminate among attribute levels. Reductions in measurement error using fewer attribute levels appear to have come at the expense of less discriminating evaluations.

Patient Preferences for Surgical Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Discrete-Choice Experiment Evaluating Total and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis but is associated with increased complication rates compared with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). UKA offers better functional outcomes but is associated with a higher risk of revision. The purpose of this study was to apply good-practice, stated-preference methods to quantify patient preferences for benefit-risk tradeoffs associated with arthroplasty treatments for end-stage knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment was developed with the following attributes: chance of complications, functional ability, awareness of the knee implant, and chance of needing another operation within 10 years. Patients included those aged 40 to 80 years with knee osteoarthritis. A pivot design filtered respondents into 1 of 2 surveys on the basis of self-reported functional ability (good compared with fair or poor) as measured by the Oxford Knee Score. Treatment-preference data were collected, and relative attribute-importance weights were estimated. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-eight completed survey instruments from 92 males and 164 females were analyzed, with 72 respondents in the good-function cohort and 186 in the fair/poor-function cohort. Patients placed the greatest value or relative importance on serious complications and rates of revision in both cohorts. Preference weights did not vary between cohorts for any attribute. In the good-function cohort, 42% of respondents chose TKA and 58% chose UKA. In the fair/poor-function cohort, 54% chose TKA and 46% chose UKA. CONCLUSIONS: Patient preferences for various treatment attributes varied among patients in a knee osteoarthritis population. Complication and revision rates were the most important factors to patients, suggesting that physicians should focus on these areas when discussing treatments. The proportion of patients who chose UKA suggests that the current trend of increased UKA utilization is aligned with patient preferences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Systematic elicitation of patient preferences for knee arthroplasty procedures, which lays out evidence-based risks and benefits of different treatments, indicates a larger subset of the knee osteoarthritis population may prefer UKA than would be suggested by the current rates of utilization of the procedure. Arthroplasty treatment should align with patient preferences and eligibility criteria to better deliver patient-centered care.

Willingness to Accept Trade-Offs Among COVID-19 Cases, Social-Distancing Restrictions, and Economic Impact: A Nationwide US Study.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a discrete-choice experiment to quantify Americans' acceptance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection risks for earlier lifting of social-distancing restrictions and diminishing the pandemic's economic impact. METHODS: We designed a discrete-choice experiment to administer 10 choice questions to each respondent representing experimentally controlled pairs of scenarios defined by when nonessential businesses could reopen (May, July, or October 2020), cumulative percentage of Americans contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through 2020 (2% to 20%), time for economic recovery (2 to 5 years), and the percentage of US households falling below the poverty threshold (16% to 25%). Respondents were recruited by SurveyHealthcareGlobus. RESULTS: A total of 5953 adults across all 50 states completed the survey between May 8 and 20, 2020. Latent-class analysis supported a 4-class model. The largest class (36%) represented COVID-19 risk-minimizers, reluctant to accept any increases in COVID-19 risks. About 26% were waiters, strongly preferring to delay reopening nonessential businesses, independent of COVID-19 risk levels. Another 25% represented recovery-supporters, primarily concerned about time required for economic recovery. This group would accept COVID-19 risks as high as 16% (95% CI: 13%-19%) to shorten economic recovery from 3 to 2 years. The final openers class prioritized lifting social distancing restrictions, accepting of COVID-19 risks greater than 20% to open in May rather than July or October. Political affiliation, race, household income, and employment status were all associated with class membership (P<.01). CONCLUSION: Americans have diverse preferences pertaining to social-distancing restrictions, infection risks, and economic outcomes. These findings can assist elected and public-health officials in making difficult policy decisions related to the pandemic.

Criteria and Process for Initiating and Developing an ISPOR Good Practices Task Force Report.

The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR)'s "Good Practices Task Force" reports are highly cited, multistakeholder perspective expert guidance reports that reflect international standards for health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) and their use in healthcare decision making. In this report, we discuss the criteria, development, and evaluation/consensus review and approval process for initiating a task force. The rationale for a task force must include a justification, including why this good practice guidance is important and its potential impact on the scientific community. The criteria include: (1) necessity (why is this task force required?); (2) a methodology-oriented focus (focus on research methods, approaches, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination); (3) relevance (to ISPOR's mission and its members); (4) durability over time; (5) broad applicability; and 6) an evidence-based approach. In addition, the proposal must be a priority specifically for ISPOR. These reports are valuable to researchers, academics, students, health technology assessors, medical technology developers and service providers, those working in other commercial entities, regulators, and payers. These stakeholder perspectives are represented in task force membership to ensure the report's overall usefulness and relevance to the global ISPOR membership. We hope that this discussion will bring transparency to the process of initiating, approving, and producing these task force reports and encourage participation from a diverse range of experts within and outside ISPOR.

Patient preferences for maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in ovarian cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To measure preferences of women with ovarian cancer regarding risks, side effects, costs and benefits afforded by maintenance therapy (MT) with a poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment elicited preferences of women with ovarian cancer regarding 6 attributes (levels in parentheses) relevant to decisions for MT versus treatment break: (1) overall survival (OS; 36, 38, 42 months); (2) progression-free survival (PFS; 15, 17, 21 months); (3) nausea (none, mild, moderate); (4) fatigue (none, mild, moderate); (5) probability of death from myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myelogenous leukemia (MDS/AML; 0% to 10%); (6) monthly out-of-pocket cost ($0 to $1000). Participants chose between 2 variable MT scenarios and a static scenario representing treatment break, with multiple iterations. Random-parameters logit regression was applied to model choices as a function of attribute levels. RESULTS: 95 eligible participants completed the survey; mean age was 62, 48% had recurrence, and 17% were ever-PARP inhibitor users. Participants valued OS (average importance weight 24.5 out of 100) and monthly costs (24.6) most highly, followed by risk of death from MDS/AML (17.9), nausea (14.7), PFS (10.5) and fatigue (7.8). Participants would accept 5% risk of MDS/AML if treatment provided 2.2 months additional OS or 4.8 months PFS. Participants would require gains of 2.6 months PFS to accept mild treatment-related fatigue and 4.4 months to accept mild nausea. CONCLUSIONS: When considering MT, women with ovarian cancer are most motivated by gains in OS. Women expect at least 3-4 months of PFS benefit to bear mild side effects of treatment.