Background
Methods
Review context
Review questions and search strategy
Selection criteria
Data analysis
Characteristics of included documents (n = 72) | n | % |
---|---|---|
1. Literature type
| ||
Original research | 23 | 32 |
Review | 17 | 24 |
Perspective article | 11 | 15 |
Project report | 7 | 10 |
Systematic review | 4 | 6 |
Workshop report | 3 | 4 |
Regulatory document | 2 | 3 |
HTA report | 2 | 3 |
Other | 3 | 4 |
2. Main decision-making context described
| ||
BRA/MA | 25 | 35 |
HTA/reimbursement | 15 | 21 |
BRA/MA + HTA/reimbursement | 12 | 17 |
IPDM | 5 | 7 |
ITD + BRA/MA | 3 | 4 |
IPDM + HTA/reimbursement + BRA/MA | 3 | 4 |
IPDM + BRA/MA | 4 | 6 |
ITD + BRA/MA + HTA/reimbursement | 2 | 3 |
BRA/MA + HTA/reimbursement + ITD + CPG | 1 | 1 |
HTA/reimbursement + IPDM | 1 | 1 |
HTA/reimbursement + CPG | 1 | 1 |
3. Stakeholder perspective
| ||
Academic | 44 | 61 |
Regulatory authority | 8 | 11 |
Industry/CRO | 7 | 10 |
HTA body | 3 | 4 |
Patient organization | 3 | 4 |
Other | 7 | 10 |
Results
1. What roles do PP have to play in the MPLC and what are reasons to use them? (desires)
1. Potential roles of PP in industry processes
| |
1.1 Early development | |
• Informing ‘go/no-go’ decisions (e.g. internal prioritization portfolio decisions) [24] | |
• Informing resource allocation decisions among multiple diseases [24] | |
• Influencing which medical product will be developed [24] | |
1.2 Clinical trial design | |
• Indicating which endpoints should (not) be considered [31] | |
• Informing clinical trial sample size [27] | |
• Calculating acceptable levels of uncertainty (significance level and power) [36] | |
1.4 Post-marketing | |
• Subgroup PP information for suggesting new markets for present indications [37] | |
• Subgroup PP information for pointing to specific treatment opportunities [37] | |
• Informing new innovations [14] | |
• Informing expanded indications or populations [14] | |
• Informing risk assessments underlying product recalls [19] | |
• Optimizing promotional materials [19] | |
• Planning and evaluating BRAs and risk management [39] | |
2. Potential roles of PP in BRA/MA
| |
• Highlighting situations with need for transparent communication about decision [42] | |
• Providing quantitative measures of how patients view their choices [24] | |
• Identifying outcomes with less perceived meaning [50] | |
• Providing insights into patient perspectives on other aspects of treatment (e.g. dosing) [34] | |
• Indicating whether patients are likely to use therapy if approved [41] | |
• Indicating how patients compare benefits and risks between treatment options [24] | |
• Indicating how patients weigh benefits and risks as the disease progresses [24] | |
3. Potential roles of PP in HTA/reimbursement
| |
• Indicating patients’ preferred health states (quality of life) [52] | |
• Highlighting potential differences in views between patients and decision-makers [40] | |
• Highlighting the value of a treatment when the QALY is considered too narrow [59] | |
• Estimating willingness to pay or willingness to accept compensation [54] | |
• Predicting uptake rates [54] | |
• Contributing to prioritization of topics for HTA [30] | |
• Tailoring reimbursement decisions based upon preference heterogeneity [52] |
1. Reasons related to the unique insights of patients
| |
2. Reasons related to the unique position of patients
| |
• Patients’ lives are affected by whether their concerns were considered [64] | |
• Patient benefit is an objective of providing healthcare services [64] | |
3. Reasons related to the positive effect on quality of the decision-making process
| |
• It enables judging the consistency of decisions with patient values [64] | |
• It facilitates integration of patient concerns into decision-making [66] | |
• It increases the effectiveness of patient involvement strategies [62] | |
• It solves the issue of which patients to involve directly in decision-making [38] | |
• It is required for the implementation of evidence-based medicine [64] |
2. What is expected to happen when PP are used in the MPLC? (expectations)
3. What concerns arise for the use of PP in the MPLC? (concerns)
1. General concerns related to PP in industry, BRA/MA and HTA/reimbursement
| |
• Lack of clarity and (regulatory) guidance about: | |
○ How to deal with preference heterogeneity [54] | |
○ Which stakeholder should collect PP [38] | |
○ Who is responsible for PP results and potential biases in results [38] | |
•Lack of patients’ knowledge and capability of expressing preferences [62] | |
2. Methodological concerns related to PP in industry, BRA/MA and HTA/reimbursement
| |
• Elicited PP are constructed and shaped by how information is presented [62] | |
• Elicited PP are influenced by external factors [62] | |
• Challenge of communicating the quantitative health information to patients [14] | |
• Respondents not taking time to complete the survey of the PP study [35] | |
• Lack of understanding among respondents [35] | |
• Question framing in preference surveys [55] | |
• Difficulty of balancing between understandability and accuracy of questions [55] | |
3. Concerns specifically related to PP in BRA/MA and HTA/reimbursement
| |
• Lack of clarity about: | |
4. Concerns specifically related to PP in HTA/reimbursement
| |
• Lack of clarity about: | |
○ Measuring PP for health aspects or also for non-health aspects [1] | |
○ Incorporating PP in economic evaluations or not [1] | |
○ How to align PP with the traditional QALY calculation [62] | |
○ How to conduct a systematic review on PP studies for informing HTA [60] | |
• Current recommendation of HTA agencies (e.g. the UK, the Netherlands) to use generic measures, whereas PP elicited via PP studies are often condition-specific [59] | |
• Current use of cost-utility analysis, which does not require quantitative PP beyond health state utilities [59] | |
• Time, funding and staff required for incorporating PP in HTA/reimbursement [1] |
4. What is needed in order to use PP in the MPLC? (requirements)
1. General requirements
| |
• More educated researchers in preference research [53] | |
• Guidance on: | |
○ Sample size [37] | |
○ How to ensure validity of a PP study [75] | |
○ How to report about PP studies [44] | |
• Further research to: | |
○ Investigate methodological issues (e.g. hindsight bias) [62] | |
○ Compare the performance of different methods in a given situation [37] | |
○ Determine impact of changing list of attributes with any given method [37] | |
○ Explore statistical methods to detect preference heterogeneity [77] | |
○ Guide the development of newer methods for eliciting PP [76] | |
○ Assess comprehension differences by participants between methods [76] | |
○ Assess impact of the level of previous education on PP [33] | |
○ Quantify the effect of the attribute descriptions on elicited PP [78] | |
2. Operational requirements
| |
• Requirements related to timing of PP study: | |
○ Decision depends on level of information of the treatments’ key risks [19] | |
○ Timing needs to be decided by sponsor [19] | |
○ During marketing phase to assess long-term side effects and burden [1] | |
• Requirements related to dealing with PP study results: | |
○ Stakeholders should be prepared for disappointing PP study results [24] | |
○ PP study results should be provided to patient community and public [24] | |
○ Presentation of PP study results should be tailored to the audience [79] | |
3. Quality requirements
| |
• General requirements regarding design, set-up and conduct of PP studies: | |
○ Selected research question should be answerable with PP study [75] | |
○ Study objectivity throughout PP study [24] | |
○ Independent design as design can influence analysis outcomes [25] | |
○ Determination of objectives and attributes before design [24] | |
○ Design based on prior literature and preference information [19] | |
○ Training partners on methodology, objectives and expectations of study [79] | |
○ Good communication and documentation of changes to study plans [79] | |
○ Consideration of internal and external validity [75] | |
○ Administration of survey by trained researchers [14] | |
○ Provision of tutorial for participants if self-administered survey is used [14] | |
○ Training of participants in elicitation tasks [40] | |
○ Ensuring participants’ understanding of aim and how results will be used [40] | |
○ Consideration of low level of health numeracy in general population [43] | |
• Sample requirements: | |
○ Sample ideally is clinical trial population [71] | |
○ Sample ideally is broader population than clinical trial population [41] | |
○ Patient should be the focus, not health care professional [14] | |
○ Sample should be representative of affected patients [56] | |
○ Sample should be representative of target population [75] | |
○ Sample that can yield reliable results should be drawn [24] | |
○ PP should come from the same population as data of effectiveness [1] | |
○ Both patients in remission as well as patients in recovery should be included [50] | |
• Sample size requirements: | |
○ Adequate size so that results are generalizable to population of interest [14] | |
○ Sufficient size to generate acceptably robust results [24] | |
○ If subgroups: sufficient number in each subgroup [14] | |
• PP results requirements: | |
○ Type of PP should be determined by research question [19] | |
○ Patient’s willingness and unwillingness to accept risks should be measured [14] | |
• Preference method requirements: | |
○ Method should account for patient-relevant attributes/outcome measures [18] | |
○ Methods should be easy and simple for patients to understand [18] | |
• Requirements regarding attribute selection: | |
○ Research question should guide attribute and level selection [75] | |
○ Attributes should be broader than clinical attributes to elicit meaningful trade-offs [41] | |
○ Attributes should be patient-centered to investigate meaningful attributes [49] | |
○ Selection by literature, qualitative study, asking group of medical experts or decision-makers [19] | |
• Requirements regarding survey instrument: | |
○ Survey should be developed with input from multiple stakeholders [24] | |
○ Survey should include screening questions, informed consent provisions, background information, training and definitions, testing, survey questions, follow-up survey questions [24] | |
○ Benefit descriptions and effectiveness measures should be carefully defined [78] | |
○ Patients should understand objective of the elicitation tasks and how data will be used [40] | |
○ For choice-based preference measures, options should: | |
■ Be clearly described [56] | |
■ Have realistic advantages and disadvantages [56] | |
■ Be communicated to patients together with their characteristics [80] | |
• Requirements regarding the analysis: | |
○ Interpretation of results should consider the mode of sampling [68] | |
○ Interpretation of study results should be validated with patients [40] | |
○ Results should be considered with preferences from other stakeholders (clinicians, decision-makers) [68] | |
○ Appropriate stakeholders should interpret analysis [79] | |
○ Sources of uncertainty should be reported through confidence interval and/or standard error [14] | |
○ Written agreements about intellectual property and data use are needed [24] |