Trade-offs between overall survival and side effects in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: eliciting preferences of patients with primary and metastatic breast cancer using a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: There has been a recent proliferation in treatment options for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Such treatments often involve trade-offs between overall survival and side effects. Our study aims to estimate the trade-offs that could be used to inform decision-making at the individual and policy level. DESIGN: We designed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to look at preferences for avoiding severity levels of side effects when choosing treatment for metastatic breast cancer. Treatment attributes were: fatigue, nausea, diarrhoea, other side effects (peripheral neuropathy, hand-foot syndrome and mucositis) and urgent hospital admission and overall survival. Responses were analysed using an error component logit model. We estimated the relative importance of attributes and minimum acceptable survival for improvements in side effects. SETTING: The DCE was completed online by UK residents with self-reported diagnoses of breast cancer. PARTICIPANTS: 105 respondents participated, of which 72 patients had metastatic breast cancer and 33 patients had primary breast cancer. RESULTS: Overall survival had the largest relative importance, followed by other side effects, diarrhoea, nausea and fatigue. The risk of urgent hospital admission was not significant. While overall survival was the most important attribute, respondents were willing to forgo some absolute probability of overall survival for reductions in all Grade 2 side effects (12.02% for hand-foot syndrome, 11.01% for mucositis, 10.42% for peripheral neuropathy, 6.33% for diarrhoea and 3.62% for nausea). Grade 1 side effects were not significant, suggesting respondents have a general tolerance for them. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are willing to forgo overall survival to avoid particular severity levels of side effects. Our results have implications for data collected in research studies and can help inform person-centred care and shared decision-making.

UK general population's willingness to pay for dental check-ups.

OBJECTIVES: Choices about which dental treatments to provide in a publicly funded system should be guided by the value that the general population place on those treatments. The aim of this study was to estimate United Kingdom (UK) general population willingness to pay (WTP) for dental check-ups, and to investigate what factors influence WTP. METHODS: WTP was elicited using a hypothetical question in an online survey. The sample consisted of 594 participants, nationally representative of the UK general population in terms of age and gender. Regression analysis was used to examine what factors are associated with WTP. Analyses were conducted including and excluding protest answers. RESULTS: The mean WTP for a dental check-up is £31.32 for the full sample and £33.17 excluding protest answers. Respondents on higher incomes and those with higher university education had higher WTP. Respondents in Scotland were WTP less than respondents living in the rest of the UK which may be the result of NHS dental check-ups being free to patients in Scotland. CONCLUSION: The general UK population value dental check-ups. This study provides estimates of WTP for dental check-ups which can be used in Cost-Benefit Analyses.

Using a discrete choice experiment to develop a decision aid tool to inform the management of persistent pain in pharmacy: a protocol for a randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: In an era of personalised healthcare, it has become increasingly important to elicit individual-level preferences. While discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to measure patient preferences in the delivery of healthcare, the focus has been sample-level analysis. Using the DCE methodology, this project has designed a digital decision aid tool (DAT) with the potential to estimate individual preferences in real time to inform clinical consultation decisions in persistent pain management. METHODS: Using a feasibility randomised control trial, this study aims to assess the feasibility of using this Understanding Persistent Pain (UPP) DAT in a pharmacy-based clinical setting and to test processes for a future definite randomised trial. Community and practice-based pharmacists (up to 10) will be recruited in The National Health Service (NHS) Grampian and trained in the use of the digital UPP DAT. Pharmacists will recruit up to 60 patients who are living with persistent pain. Patients will be randomised to one of two groups: using the UPP DAT or usual care. Pharmacists will follow-up patients as needed according to clinical need and following standard practice. DCE response data collected by the UPP DAT will be analysed using the penalised logit model, allowing estimation of individual preferences in real time. We will follow-up pharmacists and patients who use the UPP DAT to gather feedback on their experiences. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (21/NS/0059) and received Research & Development Management Permission to proceed from NHS Grampian (2021UA003E). The study has been registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, presentations and newsletters and made available in the University of Aberdeen and Pharmacy Research UK websites. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05102578; clinicaltrials.gov.

Public acceptability of non-pharmaceutical interventions to control a pandemic in the UK: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how individuals trade off between features of non-pharmaceutical interventions (eg, lockdowns) to control a pandemic across the four nations of the UK. DESIGN: A survey that included a discrete choice experiment. The survey design was informed using policy documents, social media analysis and input from remote think-aloud interviews with members of the public (n=23). SETTING: A nationwide survey across the four nations of the UK using an online panel between 29 October and 12 December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who are over 18 years old. A total of 4120 adults completed the survey (1112 in England, 848 in Northern Ireland, 1143 in Scotland and 1098 in Wales). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Adult's preferences for, and trade-offs between, type of lockdown restrictions, length of lockdown, postponement of routine healthcare, excess deaths, impact on the ability to buy things and unemployment. RESULTS: The majority of adults are willing to accept higher excess deaths if this means lockdowns that are less strict, shorter and do not postpone routine healthcare. On average, respondents in England were willing to accept a higher increase in excess deaths to have less strict lockdown restrictions introduced compared with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, respectively. In all four countries, one out of five respondents were willing to reduce excess deaths at all costs. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the UK population is willing to accept the increase in excess deaths associated with introducing less strict lockdown restrictions. The acceptability of different restriction scenarios varies according to the features of the lockdown and across countries. Governments can use information about trade-off preferences to inform the introduction of different lockdown restriction levels and design compensation policies that maximise societal welfare.

Understanding public preferences and trade-offs for government responses during a pandemic: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Social distancing and lockdown measures are among the main government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. These measures aim to limit the COVID-19 infection rate and reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19. Given we are likely to see local lockdowns until a treatment or vaccine for COVID-19 is available, and their effectiveness depends on public acceptability, it is important to understand public preference for government responses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), this study will investigate the public's preferences for pandemic responses in the UK. Attributes (and levels) are based on: (1) lockdown measures described in policy documents; (2) literature on preferences for lockdown measures and (3) a social media analysis. Attributes include: lockdown type; lockdown length; postponement of usual non-urgent medical care; number of excess deaths; number of infections; impact on household spending and job losses. We will prepilot the DCE using virtual think aloud interviews with respondents recruited via Facebook. We will collect preference data using an online survey of 4000 individuals from across the four UK countries (1000 per country). We will estimate the relative importance of the attributes, and the trade-offs individuals are willing to make between attributes. We will test if respondents' preferences differ based on moral attitudes (using the Moral Foundation Questionnaire), socioeconomic circumstances (age, education, economic insecurity, health status), country of residence and experience of COVID-19. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Aberdeen's College Ethics Research Board (CERB) has approved the study (reference: CERB/2020/6/1974). We will seek CERB approval for major changes from the developmental and pilot work. Peer-reviewed papers will be submitted, and results will be presented at public health and health economic conferences nationally and internationally. A lay summary will be published on the Health Economics Research Unit blog.