Correction to: A Systematic and Critical Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (Jul, 10.1007/s40271-.021-.00536-w, 2021)

The article “A Systematic and Critical Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease”, written by Hannah Collacott, Dian Zhang, Sebastian Heidenreich and Tommi Tervonen1 was originally published electronically on the publisher’s internet portal on 12 July 2021 without open access.</p

A Systematic and Critical Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

BACKGROUND: Regulators have called for greater emphasis on the role of the patient voice to inform medical product development and decision making, and expert guidelines and reports for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) both explicitly recommend the consideration of patient preferences in the management of these diseases. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used to quantify stakeholders’ treatment preferences and estimate the trade-offs they are willing to make between outcomes such as treatment benefits and risks. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic literature review is to provide an up-to-date and critical review of DCEs published in asthma and COPD; specifically, we aim to evaluate the subject of preference studies conducted in asthma and COPD, what attributes have been included, stakeholders’ preferences, and the consistency in reporting of instrument development, testing and reporting of results. METHODS: A systematic review of published DCEs on asthma and COPD treatments was conducted using Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Studies were included if they included a DCE conducted in a relevant population (e.g. patients with asthma or COPD or their caregivers, asthma or COPD-treating clinicians, or the general population), and reported quantitative outcomes on participants’ preferences. Study characteristics were summarised descriptively, and descriptive analyses of attribute categories, consistency in reporting on key criteria, and stakeholder preferences were undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 33 eligible studies were identified, including 28 unique DCEs. The majority (n = 20; 71%) of studies were conducted in a patient sample. Studies focused on inhaler treatments, and included attributes in five key categories: symptoms and treatment benefits (n = 23; 82%), treatment convenience (n = 19; 68%), treatment cost (n = 17; 61%), treatment risks (n = 13; 46%), and other (n = 10; 36%). Symptoms and treatment benefits were the attributes most frequently ranked as important to patients (n = 26, 72%), followed by treatment risks (n = 7, 39%). Several studies (n = 9, 32%) did not qualitatively pre-test their DCE, and a majority did not report the uncertainty in estimated outcomes (n = 18; 64%). CONCLUSIONS: DCEs in asthma and COPD have focused on treatment benefits and convenience, with less evidence generated on participants’ risk tolerance. Quality criteria and reporting standards are needed to promote study quality and ensure consistency in reporting between studies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00536-w

Patient Perceptions Regarding Multiple Myeloma and Its Treatment:Qualitative Evidence from Interviews with Patients in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care for multiple myeloma requires several regimens of treatment, with patients experiencing high symptom burden and side effects, which negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Thus, it is crucial to understand patient perceptions of multiple myeloma and how patients value different treatment options. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct an exploratory investigation into concepts that could form attributes that influence treatment choices for patients with multiple myeloma and to identify trade-offs that patients are willing to make between treatment attributes. METHODS: In total, 30 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma from the UK, France, and Germany participated in semistructured interviews talking about their disease experience and symptoms, treatment benefits, treatment burden, perceived side effects, and benefit/risk trade-offs in treatment. The interview audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis to identify treatment and disease aspects relevant to patients. RESULTS: Symptoms of fatigue and bone pain and treatment side effects of peripheral neuropathy, diarrhea, and constipation were cited by patients as the most disruptive to their HRQoL. Treatment duration was reported most frequently as a major treatment burden, and patients emphasized the importance of increased life expectancy as a treatment benefit. All patients showed good understanding of benefit/risk trade-offs in treatment, and some patients expressed a preference for more convenient modes of treatment administration. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative interviews identified key aspects of multiple myeloma treatment that are most important to patients. These findings will inform a wider patient-preferences study, which could improve treatment choice and HRQoL for patients with multiple myeloma. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00501-7

Designing financial incentives for health behaviour change: a mixed-methods case study of weight loss in men with obesity

Aim: Designing financial incentives for health behaviour change requires choices across several domains, including value (the size of the incentive), frequency of incentives, and direction (gain or loss). However, the rationale underlying complex incentive design is infrequently reported. Transparent reporting is important if we want to understand and improve the incentive development process. This paper describes a mixed methods approach for designing financial incentives for health behaviour change which involves stakeholders throughout the design process. Subject and methods: The mixed methods approach focuses on incentives for weight loss for men with obesity living in areas with high levels of disadvantage. The approach involves: (a) using an existing framework to identify all domains of a financial incentive scheme for which choices need to be made, deciding what criteria are relevant (such as effectiveness, acceptability and uptake) and making choices on each domain on the basis of the criteria; (b) conducting a survey of target population preferences to inform choices for domains and to design the incentive scheme; and (c) making final decisions at a stakeholder consensus workshop. Results: The approach was implemented and an incentive scheme for weight loss for men living with obesity was developed. Qualitative interview data from men receiving the incentives in a feasibility trial endorses our approach. Conclusion: This paper demonstrates that a mixed methods approach with stakeholder involvement can be used to design financial incentives for health behaviour change such as weight loss. Trial registration number: NCT03040518. Date: 2 February 2017

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments

As the number and type of cancer treatments available rises and patients live with the consequences of their disease and treatments for longer, understanding preferences for cancer care can help inform decisions about optimal treatment development, access, and care provision. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used as a tool to elicit stakeholder preferences; however, their implementation in oncology may be challenging if burdensome trade-offs (e.g. length of life versus quality of life) are involved and/or target populations are small