Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research:What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

Background and Objective: There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community. Methods: Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design. Results: One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice. Conclusions: As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.</p

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community. METHODS: Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design. RESULTS: One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice. CONCLUSIONS: As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers

Global risks Eine Bestandsaufnahme

'Nach dem Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts ist die Welt nicht ein ruhigerer Ort geworden, wie von vielen vorausgesagt. Eher im Gegenteil. Zahlreiche Krisenherde und Konfliktfelder sind zu registrieren. Globalisierung fuehrt nur teilweise zu Integration und Homogenisierung. In vielen Bereichen und Regionen fragmentiert sich die Weltgesellschaft. Sogenannte neue Risiken verschraenken sich mit aelteren. Die Themenbeitraege widmen sich den Neuen Kriegen und gewaltfoermiger Konfliktaustragung; demographischen Veraenderungen; den Kontextfaktoren Energie und Umwelt; Aids, stellvertretend fuer gesundheitliche Risiken; dem Komplex der neuen Wissensdifferenzen und Zugangsschranken; der Gefaehrdung von Infrastrukturen; der Bedeutung von Stroemen (flows) - an den Beispielen von Kapital und Kommunikation; der Bedeutung von Identitaeten und deren Irritationen; der Rolle und dem Ge- und Missbrauch von Medien; der verbleibenden oder auch neuen Rolle von Politik; und, damit verbunden, aber auch Unterschieden, den residualen Funktionen von Staaten.' (Textauszug). Inhaltsverzeichnis: Stephan Blancke, Conny Beyer: Globale Risiken in Theorie und Themen, eine Einleitung (10-14); Matthias Miguel Braun, Christian Ganske, Benjamin Struss: Neue Kriege (14-20); Nathalie Klein, Ellen van Hees, Charlotte Fiala: Globale Risiken der Demographie, Wirtschaft und sozialen Verwerfungen (20-27); Thomas Haberland, Katrin Moch: Energie, Klima und Umwelt (27-34); Stephan Blancke: Aids als Parameter eines globalen Systems (34-38); Dorothee Fischer, Annette Heimann, Horst Schmidt, Antje Witting: Wissen ist Macht. Nichtswissen macht nichts? (38-45); Conny Beyer, Thomas Kraemer: Cyberterrorismus: Virtuelle Verbrechen, reale Risiken? (45-53); Nicolas Hausseguy: Flows: Gueter- und Kapitalstroeme (53-59); Dirk Lullies: Die Risiken globaler Medienstroeme (59-65); Kati Kuitto, Liliane Hertrich, Tanja Pflug, Kristina Klinkforth: Die Konstruktion von Identitaet: Identity building als neues Risikopotential (65-71); Christian Thauer, Alexandra Maier, Mark Donfried: Das Risikopotential globaler Medien (71-76); Florentina Bonari, Peter Wilhelm: Verlorenes Terrain oder neue Qualitaet: zur veraenderten Rolle von Politik im Zeitalter der Globalisierung (76-82); Lena Langbein, Stephan Massing, Daniel Schaefer: Die Rolle des Staates: Centre of Surveillance or Failing Agency? (82-88); Conny Beyer: Das letzte der Zeitalter: die Konstruktion von Risiko (88-93); Charlotte Fiala: Zur Hierarchisierung von globalen Risiken (93-96); Horst Schmidt: Vom Umgang mit Risiken oder Va banque? Tout a la banque. (96-102)Available from http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/ / FIZ - Fachinformationszzentrum Karlsruhe / TIB - Technische InformationsbibliothekSIGLEDEGerman

Creating a suite of macros for meta-analysis in SAS®: A case study in collaboration

A series of macros that have been created to perform fixed and random effects meta-analysis in SAS® are described as is the motivation for their creation. These macros are being made freely available on the internet for others to use. The application of the macros is illustrated using an example of trials in pre-eclampsia.Fixed effects Random effects Galbraith plot Forest plot Funnel plot

Giving Patients’ Preferences a Voice in Medical Treatment Life Cycle : The PREFER Public–Private Project

IMI-PREFE

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What questions should be prioritized now?

Background and ObjectiveThere has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community.MethodsPreference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design.ResultsOne hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice.ConclusionsAs the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers