PRM218 - CHARACTERISING AND APPRAISING PATIENT PREFERENCE EXPLORATION AND ELICITIATION METHODS IN THE MEDICAL PRODUCT LIFECYCLE

Abstract

Incorporating patient preferences into decision-making has become increasingly important to different stakeholders. However, there is currently no comprehensive overview describing which patient preference methods are most suitable for different stages in the medical product lifecycle (MPLC), or allowing decision-makers to compare methods based on their needs. This study aims to 1) identify important criteria and weights by which to characterise and appraise 32 patient preference elicitation and exploration methods, and 2) identify the methods that are most suitable to meet decision-makers’ needs in the MPLC. A four-step approach was taken: 1) Criteria to appraise the methods were identified through a Q-methodology exercise (n=54 respondents involved in health preference research (HPR)), examining four hypothetical scenarios in the MPLC, 2) Numerical weights to ascertain the relative importance for each criterion were determined through an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (n=122 HPR respondents), 3) The performance of 32 methods was determined by applying the weights, and by consulting (n=17) international HPR experts and relevant literature, 4) The methods were compared to each other in taxonomy groups reflecting their similar techniques. 12 promising preference exploration and elicitation methods were identified across the taxonomy groups as likely to meet decision-makers’ needs: focus groups, in-depth interviews, semi-structured interviews, discrete choice experiments/best-worst scaling type 3, (probabilistic) threshold technique, standard gamble, time trade-off, swing weighting, visual analogue scale, AHP, best-worst scaling types 1 and 2. Additionally, 11 other methods were identified that could have potential, although theoretical and/or publication frequency issues were identified that decision-makers must consider. The selection of an exploration or elicitation method ultimately depends on the research question, objectives, and feasibility of the patient preference study. Our transparent, weighted approach to the comparison of methods provides valuable support to decision-makers. Acknowledgement: Support received from EU/EFPIA IMI[2] Joint Undertaking PREFER grant n°115966.