Testing for sexually transmitted infections among students: a discrete choice experiment of service preferences

Objectives To assess preferences among students for sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing services, with a view to establishing strength of preference for different service attributes. Design Online discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire. Setting South East of England. Participants A convenience sample of 233 students from two universities. Outcomes Adjusted ORs in relation to service characteristics. Results The study yielded 233 responses. Respondents’ ages ranged from 16 to 34 years with a mean age of 22 years. Among this sample, the respondents demonstrated strong preferences for a testing service which provided tests for all STIs including syphilis, herpes and HIV (OR 4.1; 95% CI 3.36 to 4.90) and centres staffed by a doctor or nurse with specialist knowledge of STIs (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.78 to 2.37). Receiving all test results, whether positive or negative, was also significantly preferable to not being notified when tests were all negative (‘no news is good news’; OR 1.3; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.5). The length of time waiting for an appointment and the method by which results are received were not significant service characteristics in terms of preferences. Patient level characteristics such as age, sex and previous testing experience did not predict the likelihood of testing. Conclusions This study demonstrates that of the examined attributes, university students expressed the strongest preference for a comprehensive testing service. The next strongest preferences were for being tested by specialist STI staff and receiving negative as well as positive test results. However, it remains unclear how strong these preferences are in relation to characteristics which were not part of the study design and whether or not they are cost-effective

A multicriteria decision analysis comparing pharmacotherapy for chronic neuropathic pain, including cannabinoids and cannabis-based medical products

Background: Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) still represents a major clinical challenge. Collective harnessing of both the scientific evidence base and clinical experience (of clinicians and patients) can play a key role in informing treatment pathways and contribute to the debate on specific treatments (e.g., cannabinoids). A group of expert clinicians (pain specialists and psychiatrists), scientists, and patient representatives convened to assess the relative benefit–safety balance of 12 pharmacological treatments, including orally administered cannabinoids/cannabis-based medicinal products, for the treatment of CNP in adults. Methods: A decision conference provided the process of creating a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) model, in which the group collectively scored the drugs on 17 effect criteria relevant to benefits and safety and then weighted the criteria for their clinical relevance. Findings: Cannabis-based medicinal products consisting of tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD), in a 1:1 ratio, achieved the highest overall score, 79 (out of 100), followed by CBD dominant at 75, then THC dominant at 72. Duloxetine and the gabapentinoids scored in the 60s, amitriptyline, tramadol, and ibuprofen in the 50s, methadone and oxycodone in the 40s, and morphine and fentanyl in the 30s. Sensitivity analyses showed that even if the pain reduction and quality-of-life scores for THC/CBD and THC are halved, their benefit–safety balances remain better than those of the noncannabinoid drugs. Interpretation: The benefit–safety profiles for cannabinoids were higher than for other commonly used medications for CNP largely because they contribute more to quality of life and have a more favorable side effect profile. The results also reflect the shortcomings of alternative pharmacological treatments with respect to safety and mitigation of neuropathic pain symptoms. Further high-quality clinical trials and systematic comprehensive capture of clinical experience with cannabinoids is warranted. These results demonstrate once again the complexity and multimodal mechanisms underlying the clinical experience and impact of chronic pain