General Population Preferences Research Articles

Patients, healthcare providers, and general population preferences for hemodialysis vascular access: a discrete choice experiment.

A patient-centered dialysis treatment option requires an understanding of patient preferences for alternative vascular accesses and nephrologists often face difficulties when recommending vascular access to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients. We aimed to quantify the relative importance of various vascular access characteristics to patients, healthcare providers and general population, and how they affect acceptability for patients and healthcare providers. In a discrete choice experiment, patients with maintenance hemodialysis (MHD), healthcare providers, and individuals from the general population were invited to respond to a series of hypothetical vascular access scenarios that differed in five attributes: cumulative patency, infection rate, thrombosis rate, cost, and time to maturation. We estimated the respondents' preference heterogeneity and relative importance of the attributes with a mixed logit model (MXL) and predicted the willingness to pay (WTP) of respondents via a multinomial logit model (MNL). Healthcare providers (n = 316) and the general population (n = 268) exhibited a favorable inclination toward longer cumulative patency, lower access infection rate and lower access thrombosis rate. In contrast, the patients (n = 253) showed a preference for a 3-year cumulative patency, 8% access infection rate, 35% access thrombosis rate and 1.5 access maturity time, with only the 3-year cumulative patency reaching statistical significance. Among the three respondent groups, the general population found cumulative patency less important than healthcare providers and patients did. Patients demonstrated the highest WTP for cumulative patency, indicating a willingness to pay an extra RMB$24,720(US$3,708) for each additional year of patency time. Patients and healthcare providers had a strong preference for vascular access with superior patency. While the general population preferred vascular access with lower thrombosis rates. These results indicate that most patients prefer autogenous arteriovenous fistula (AVF) as an appropriate choice for vascular access due to its superior patency and lower complications than other vascular access types.

A Spanish value set for the SF-6D based on the SF-12 v1.

This paper reports the first estimation of an SF-6D value set based on the SF-12 for Spain. A representative sample (n = 1020) of the Spanish general population valued a selection of 56 hypothetical SF-6D health states by means of a probability lottery equivalent (PLE) method. The value set was derived using both random effects and mean models estimated by ordinary least squares (OLS). The best model was chosen on the basis of its predictive ability assessed in terms of mean absolute error (MAE). The model yielding the lowest MAE (0.075) was that based on main effects using OLS. Pain was the most significant dimension in predicting health state severity. Comparison with the previous SF-6D (SF-36) model estimated for Spain revealed no significant differences, with a similar MAE (0.081). Nevertheless, the new SF-6D (SF-12) model predicted higher utilities than those generated by the SF-6D (SF-36) scoring algorithm (minimum value -0.071 vs -0.357). A value set for the SF-6D (SF-12) based on Spanish general population preferences elicited by means of a PLE technique is successfully estimated. The new estimated SF-6D (SF-12) preference-based measure provides a valuable tool for researchers and policymakers to assess the cost-effectiveness of new health technologies in Spain.

A Best-Worst Scaling Study of the General Population's Preferences for Activities in Living Arrangements for Persons With Dementia.

Activity involvement is a central element of dementia care. However, few studies have examined preferences for types of activities for persons who may be in need of care in the future. In this study, a best-worst scaling (BWS) was conducted to gather insights on preferred activities in small-scale living arrangements for dementia in the general population aged 50-65 years from rural and urban regions. BWS tasks were developed based on literature searches and focus groups. The final BWS contains ten activities, namely 'interaction with animals', 'gardening', 'painting, handicrafts, manual activities', 'household activities (e.g., folding laundry, cooking)', 'watching television', 'practicing religion', 'listening to music and singing familiar songs', 'conversations about the past', 'walks and excursions', 'sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)'. Each participant had to fill out subsets of four objects each and identify them as best and worst. A postal survey was sent to a total of 4390 persons from rural and urban regions aged between 50 and 65 years. Results were analyzed by count analysis and logit models. It was examined if preferences differ with respect to gender, religiousness, and informal caregiving experience. A total of 840 questionnaires were returned, and 627 surveys were included in the analysis. In the rural sample, the highest relative importance (RI) was assigned to 'walks and excursions' (RI: 100%), 'sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)' (RI: 56%), 'gardening' (RI: 28%), and 'interaction with animals' (26%). In the urban sample, 'walks and excursions' (RI: 100%), 'sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)' (RI: 37%), 'interaction with animals' (25%) and 'gardening' (RI: 22%) were perceived as most important. In both groups, household activities and practicing religion were of lowest importance. Importance ranks differed between subgroups. Results of the logit models with random effects showed the same order as results from the count analyses. Our findings show that respondents generally favored activities with an outdoor component, while the household activities that are part of many concepts were of low importance to respondents. Thus, our study can inform the design of a preference-based specific range of activities in small-scale living arrangements for dementia.

UnitedStates Value Set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Eight Dimensions (FACT-8D), a Cancer-Specific Preference-Based Quality of Life Instrument.

To develop a value set reflecting the United States (US) general population's preferences for health states described by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) eight-dimensions preference-based multi-attribute utility instrument (FACT-8D), derived from the FACT-General cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) questionnaire. A US online panel was quota-sampled to achieve a general population sample representative by sex, age (≥ 18 years), race and ethnicity. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to value health states. The valuation task involved choosing between pairs of health states (choice-sets) described by varying levels of the FACT-8D HRQL dimensions and survival (life-years). The DCE included 100 choice-sets; each respondent was randomly allocated 16 choice-sets. Data were analysed using conditional logit regression parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework, weighted for sociodemographic variables that were non-representative of the US general population. Preference weights were calculated as the ratio of HRQL-level coefficients to the survival coefficient. 2562 panel members opted in, 2462 (96%) completed at least one choice-set and 2357 (92%) completed 16 choice-sets. Pain and nausea were associated with the largest utility weights, work and sleep had more moderate utility weights, and sadness, worry and support had the smallest utility weights. Within dimensions, more severe HRQL levels were generally associated with larger weights. A preference-weighting algorithm to estimate US utilities from responses to the FACT-General questionnaire was generated. The worst health state's value was -0.33. This value set provides US population utilities for health states defined by the FACT-8D for use in evaluating oncology treatments.

Influence of Self-Reported Health Impairments on German EQ-5D-5L Values

ObjectivesThe German EQ-5D-5L value set is based on the average preferences of the general population. Nevertheless, in Germany, there is an ongoing debate about the appropriateness of using general population preferences and whether patient preferences should be used instead. Thus, this research aimed to determine the robustness of the German EQ-5D-5L valuation data for the general population compared with those with health impairments. MethodsSubgroups were built on the self-reported quality of life, measured with the EQ-5D-5L. To identify which groups significantly influenced the value set, different regression models, including dummy variables for the subgroups, were tested while controlling for preference heterogeneity. Backward selection based on the Akaike information criterion led to significant subgroup dummies, which were analyzed in more detail. For each significant subgroup, the value set model was estimated separately. The models were then compared. Sociodemographics of the subgroups were considered. ResultsThree significant dummies were identified: state 11111, severity levels 5 to 7, and self-reported problems with pain/discomfort. The value sets for the 6 subgroups were compared with the national German value set, showing only marginal deviations. The mean absolute deviation ranged from 0.004 to 0.013. No different densities were identified for the decrements of the different value sets. ConclusionsPeople with self-reported health impairments do not have different EQ-5D-5L health state preferences compared with the German general population. Further research is needed to determine whether the presence of a chronic health condition has a larger influence on health state valuation than the general population.

Investigating Individuals' Preferences in Determining the Functions of Smartphone Apps for Fighting Pandemics: Best-Worst Scaling Survey Study.

Smartphone apps have been beneficial in controlling and preventing the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is a gap in research surrounding the importance of smartphone app functions from a user's perspective. Although the insights and opinions of different stakeholders, such as policymakers and medical professionals, can influence the success of a public health policy, any strategy will face difficulty in achieving the expected effect if it is not based on a method that users can accept. This study aimed to assess the importance of a hypothetical smartphone app's functions for managing health during a pandemic based on the perspective of user preferences. A cross-sectional and web-based survey using the best-worst scaling (BWS) method was used to investigate the general population's preferences for important smartphone app functions. Participants were recruited from a professional surveying company's web-based surveying panel. The attributes of the BWS questionnaire were developed based on a robust process, including literature review, interviews, and expert discussion. A balanced incomplete block design was used to construct the choice task to ensure the effectiveness of the research design. Count analysis, conditional logit model analysis, and mixed logit analysis were used to estimate preference heterogeneity among respondents. The responses of 2153 participants were eligible for analysis. Nearly 55% (1192/2153) were female, and the mean age was 31.4 years. Most participants (1765/2153, 81.9%) had completed tertiary or higher education, and approximately 70% (1523/2153) were urban residents. The 3 most vital functions according to their selection were "surveillance and monitoring of infected cases," "quick self-screening," and "early detection of infected cases." The mixed logit regression model identified significant heterogeneity in preferences among respondents, and stratified analysis showed that some heterogeneities varied in respondents by demographics and COVID-19-related characteristics. Participants who preferred to use the app were more likely to assign a high weight to the preventive functions than those who did not prefer to use it. Conversely, participants who showed lower willingness to use the app tended to indicate a higher preference for supportive functions than those who preferred to use it. This study ranks the importance of smartphone app features that provide health care services during a pandemic based on the general population's preferences in China. It provides empirical evidence for decision-makers to develop eHealth policies and strategies that address future public health crises from a person-centered care perspective. Continued use of apps and smart investment in digital health can help improve health outcomes and reduce the burden of disease on individuals and communities.

Second Version of the Short Form 6-Dimension Value Set Elicited From Patients With Breast and Colorectal Cancer: A Hybrid Approach.

Quality-adjusted life-year instruments help comparison among programs by capturing their effects in terms of utility. Generic instruments are applicable to everyone, and for this reason, they are known to lack sensitivity when measuring gains in some domains. Specific instruments tend to fill this gap but, in domains like cancer, existing instruments are either nonpreferences-based or based on the general population's preferences. This study describes the development of a new value set for a well-known and highly used generic instrument, the Second Version of the Short Form 6-Dimension, to better consider the preferences of patients with cancer. In this aim, a hybrid approach combining the time trade-off and the discrete choice experiment was used. The population of interest was the Quebec population, Canada, with breast or colorectal cancer. Their preferences were elicited in 2 periods: before (T1) and 8 days after the beginning of a chemotherapy procedure (T2). A total of 2808 observations for the time trade-off and 2520 observations for the discrete choice experiment were used. The parsimonious model encompassing the 2 periods was the preferred model. The new value set allows a greater utility range than the EQ-5D-5L and the Second Version of the Short Form 6-Dimension reference value sets and helps in better considering patients experiencing severe health situations. A good correlation between these 2 instruments and other specific cancer instruments (ie, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, QLU-C10D, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General) was observed. Significative differences in utility values were also noted within periods and types of cancer.

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BackgroundPatient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). ObjectiveTo evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups. Design, setting, and participantsWe conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022. Outcome measurements and statistical analysisWe evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses. Results and limitationsPatients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (p = 0.004), with substantial preference heterogeneity between individuals within the two samples (both p < 0.001). There was no evidence of differences in preferences for men aged 45–65 yr versus ≥65 yr, patients with mPC in different disease stages or with different adverse effect experiences, or general population participants with and without experiences with cancer. Latent class analyses suggested the presence of two groups strongly preferring either survival or the absence of adverse effects, with no specific characteristic clearly associated with belonging to either group. Potential biases due to participant selection, cognitive burden, and hypothetical choice scenarios may limit the study results. ConclusionsGiven the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC. Patient summaryWe examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.

Public Perception of Ideal Areola Proportions.

In breast reconstruction, mastopexy, and breast reduction procedures, surgeons make decisions about the resulting areola size, and this significantly impacts the overall aesthetic result. Despite the importance of these decisions, little is known about the general population's preferences for areola size. The objective of this study was to survey the global population to better understand the public's perceptions of ideal areola dimensions. A survey was developed with 9 different composite diagrams of a female torso (every combination of 3 breast widths and 3 waist widths). In each composite diagram, 6 different areola sizes were shown (areola-to-breast diameter ranging from 1:12 to 6:12). The survey was distributed via the Amazon Mechanical Turk digital platform, and respondents' demographics (sex, age, race/ethnicity, country, and state if located in the United States) and preferences for the most aesthetically pleasing size in each composite diagram were recorded. Among 2259 participants, with 1283 male (56.8%) and 976 female (43.2%), most participants were between 25 and 34 years old (1012, 44.8%), were from the United States (1669, 73.9%), and identified as White (1430, 63.3%). With 9 breast width and waist width combinations, the respondents were most likely to prefer the 2:12 (32.9%) areola-to-breast ratio ( P < 0.0001). The second most commonly preferred ratio was 3:12 (30.6%) ( P < 0.0001). Gender subgroup analysis showed that women preferred middle-range ratios, such as 2:12, 3:12, and 4:12 ( P < 0.0001). Meanwhile, men were more likely to prefer extreme ratios of 1:12 or 6:12 ( P < 0.0001). Across almost all races/ethnicities, 2:12 was significantly the most popular, except among American Indian/Alaskan Native and Middle Eastern where 3:12 was the most preferred ( P < 0.0001). Within the top 6 countries (United States, India, Brazil, Italy, Canada, United Kingdom), the United States, India, and Italy preferred 2:12, and Brazil, Canada, and the United Kingdom preferred 3:12 ( P < 0.0001). This study provides the first objective data on public impressions of the ideal areola proportions and can serve as a guide for surgical decision making in breast reconstruction and reshaping procedures.

General Population and Surgeon Preferences for Pollicization Versus Toe-To-Thumb Transfer for Reconstruction of Traumatic Thumb Loss in Adults: An International, Multi-Center Survey Study

Data objectively comparing outcomes following pollicization versus toe-to-thumb transfer for reconstruction after traumatic thumb amputation in adults remains sparse. Given that this decision is reliant on personal preference, it is important to understand the subjective nature of these preferences, particularly in the context of culture. The purpose of this study was to compare Eastern and Western societal and hand surgeon preferences for pollicization versus toe-to-thumb transfer for traumatic thumb reconstruction. Investigators from 6 international locations recruited local hand surgeons and members of the general population. Austria, Germany, the United States, and Spain were grouped as "Western" nations. China and India separately represented "Eastern" nations. Participants completed a questionnaire evaluating their personal preferences for pollicization and toe-to-thumb transfer. The questions posed to the general population and hand surgeons were identical. Demographic data were also collected. When comparing the Western nations, China, and India, there was no difference in personal preferences within the general population for pollicization versus toe-to-thumb transfer. In contrast, most Indian hand surgeons favored toe-to-thumb transfer and most Western surgeons were uncertain about which procedure they would favor. Surgeons had more optimistic expectations regarding postoperative hand function, new thumb sensation, and hand appearance following pollicization than the general population. Similarly, for toe-to-thumb transfer, a greater proportion of surgeons predicted good-to-excellent function, sensation, and appearance. There was no clear, observed "East" versus "West" difference in the general population's personal preferences for pollicization versus toe-to-thumb transfer among study participants. The members of the general population and hand surgeons had different outcome expectations. Understanding how culture influences patient and hand surgeon preferences for pollicization versus toe-to-thumb transfer may help guide future decision-making for traumatic thumb reconstruction.

How Does the Public Evaluate Vaccines for Low-Incidence, Severe-Outcome Diseases? A General-Population Choice Experiment.

Because immunizing large numbers of healthy people could be required to reduce a relatively small number of infections, disease incidence has a large impact on cost effectiveness, even if the infection is associated with very serious health outcomes. In addition to cost effectiveness, the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices requires evidence of stakeholders' values and preferences to help inform vaccine recommendations. This study quantified general-population preferences for vaccine trade-offs among disease severity, disease incidence, and other vaccine features. We developed a best-practice discrete choice experiment survey and administered it to 1185 parents of children aged 12-23 years and 1203 young adults aged 18-25 years from a national opt-in consumer panel. The data were analyzed using exploded-logit latent-class analysis. Latent-class analysis identified two classes with similar relative-importance weights in both samples. One of the two classes represented about half the samples and had preferences consistent with well-structured, logically ordered, and acceptably precise stated-preference utility. Preferences for the other half of the samples were poorly defined over the ranges of vaccine and disease attributes evaluated. Both parents and young adults in the first class evaluated protection from a disease with 1 in 100 incidence and full recovery at home as having statistically the same preference utility as a disease with 1 in 1 million incidence requiring hospitalization and resulting in permanent deafness. The results suggest that vaccines that protect against low-incidence, severe-outcome diseases, provide 'peace of mind' benefits not captured by standard health-outcome metrics. The fact that half the respondents had poorly defined vaccine preferences is a reminder of the challenges of implementing patient-centric vaccine decision making.

General population preferences for cancer care in health systems of China: A discrete choice experiment.

The increasing incidence of cancer in China has posed considerable challenges for cancer care delivery systems. This study aimed to determine the general population's preferences for cancer care, to provide evidence for building a people-centered integrated cancer care system. We conducted a discrete choice experiment that involved 1,200 participants in Shandong Province. Individuals were asked to choose between cancer care scenarios based on the type and level of hospitals, with various out-of-pocket costs, waiting time, and contact working in the hospitals. Individual preferences, willingness to pay, and uptake rate were estimated using a mixed-logit model. This study included 848 respondents (70.67%). Respondents preferred county hospitals with shorter hospitalization waiting times and contact working in hospitals. Compared to the reference levels, the three highest willingness to pay values were related to waiting time for hospitalization (¥97,857.69-¥145411.70-¥212,992.10/$14512.70-$21565.16-$31587.61), followed by the county-level hospital (¥32,545.13/$4826.58). The preferences of the different groups of respondents were diverse. Based on a county-level general hospital with contact in the hospital, 50% out-of-pocket costs and a waiting time of 15 days, the probability of seeking baseline care was 0.37. Reducing the waiting time from 15 to 7, 3, and 0 days, increases the probability of choosing a county-level hospital from 0.37 to 0.58, 0.64, and 0.70, respectively. This study suggests that there is a substantial interest in attending county-level hospitals and that reducing hospitalization waiting time is the most effective measure to increase the probability of seeking cancer care in county-level hospitals.

Economic evaluation of a Decision Support Tool to guide intensity of mental health care in general practice: the Link-me pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThis paper reports on the cost-effectiveness evaluation of Link-me – a digitally supported, systematic approach to triaging care for depression and anxiety in primary care that uses a patient-completed Decision Support Tool (DST).MethodsThe economic evaluation was conducted alongside a parallel, stratified individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing prognosis-matched care to usual care at six- and 12-month follow-up. Twenty-three general practices in three Australian Primary Health Networks recruited 1,671 adults (aged 18 – 75 years), predicted by the DST to have minimal/mild or severe depressive or anxiety symptoms in three months. The minimal/mild prognostic group was referred to low intensity services. Participants screened in the severe prognostic group were offered high intensity care navigation, a model of care coordination. The outcome measures included in this evaluation were health sector costs (including development and delivery of the DST, care navigation and other healthcare services used) and societal costs (health sector costs plus lost productivity), psychological distress [Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10)] and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the EuroQol 5-dimension quality of life questionnaire with Australian general population preference weights applied. Costs were valued in 2018–19 Australian dollars (A$).ResultsAcross all participants, the health sector incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Link-me per point decrease in K10 at six months was estimated at $1,082 (95% CI $391 to $6,204) increasing to $2,371 (95% CI $191 to Dominated) at 12 months. From a societal perspective, the ICER was estimated at $1,257/K10 point decrease (95% CI Dominant to Dominated) at six months, decreasing to $1,217 (95% CI Dominant to Dominated) at 12 months. No significant differences in QALYs were detected between trial arms and the intervention was dominated (less effective, more costly) based on the cost/QALY ICER.ConclusionsThe Link-me approach to stepped mental health care would not be considered cost-effective utilising a cost/QALY outcome metric commonly adopted by health technology assessment agencies. Rather, Link-me showed a trend toward cost-effectiveness by providing improvement in mental health symptoms, measured by the K10, at an additional cost.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ANZCTRN 12617001333303.

Public Valuation of Direct Restorations: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Direct posterior dental restorations are commonly provided following management of dental caries. Amalgam use has been phased down and the feasibility of a phase-out by 2030 is being explored. Alternative direct restorative materials differ in their outcomes and provision. This research aimed to elicit the UK population’s preferences for different attributes of restorations and their willingness to pay (WTP) for restorative services and outcomes. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed with patient and public involvement and distributed to a representative sample of the UK general population using an online survey. Respondents answered 17 choice tasks between pairs of scenarios that varied in levels of 7 attributes (wait for filling, clinician type, filling color, length of procedure, likely discomfort after filling, average life span of filling, and cost). An opt-out (no treatment) was included. Mixed logit models were used for data analysis. Marginal WTP for attribute levels and relative attribute importance were calculated. In total, 1,002 respondents completed the DCE. Overall, respondents were willing to pay £39.52 to reduce a 6-wk wait for treatment to 2 wk, £13.55 to have treatment by a dentist rather than a therapist, £41.66 to change filling color from silvery/gray to white, £0.27 per minute of reduced treatment time, £116.52 to move from persistent to no postoperative pain, and £5.44 per year of increased restoration longevity. Ability to pay affected willingness to pay, with low-income respondents more likely to opt out of treatment and value restoration color (white) and increased longevity significantly lower than those with higher income. Clinicians should understand potential drivers of restoration choice, so they can be discussed with individual patients to obtain consent. It is important that policy makers consider general population preferences for restorative outcomes and services, with an awareness of how income affects these, when considering the potential phase-out of amalgam restorations.

Estimating the EQ-5D-5L value set for the Philippines

BackgroundThe Philippines has recommended the use of Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in government health technology assessments (HTA). We aimed to develop a value set for the EQ-5D-5L based on health preferences of the healthy general adult population in the Philippines.MethodsHealthy, literate adults were recruited from the Philippine general population with quota targets based on age, sex, administrative region, type of residence, education, income, and ethnolinguistic groups. Each participant’s preference was elicited by completing Composite Time Trade-Off (C-TTO) and Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) tasks. Tasks were computer-assisted using the EuroQol Valuation Technology 2.0. To estimate the value set, we explored 20- and 8-parameter models that either use c-TTO-only data or both c-TTO and DCE (also called hybrid models). Final model choice was guided by principles of monotonicity, out-of-sample likelihood, model fit, and parsimony.ResultsWe recruited 1000 respondents with demographic characteristics that approximate the general population such as 49.6% Female, 82% Roman Catholic, 40% in urban areas, and 55% finished high school. None of the 20-parameter models demonstrated monotonicity (logical worsening of coefficients with increasing severity). From the 8-parameter models, the homoscedastic TTO-only model exhibited the best fit. From this model, mobility and pain/ discomfort had the highest effect on utilities.ConclusionThe selected model for representing the Philippine general population preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states was an 8-parameter homoscedastic TTO-only model. This value set is recommended for use in QALY calculations in support of HTA-informed coverage decisions in the Philippines.

Disutility of injectable therapies in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus: general population preferences in the UK, Canada, and China

IntroductionOnce-daily and once-weekly injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapies (GLP-1 RAs) are established in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In T2DM, both once-daily and once-weekly insulin are expected to be available. This study elicited utilities associated with these treatment regimens from members of the general public in the UK, Canada, and China, to quantify administration-related disutility of more-frequent injectable treatment, and allow economic modelling.MethodsTwo anchor states (no pharmacological treatment), and seven treatment states (daily oral tablet and generic injectable regimens of variable frequency), with identical outcomes were tested A broadly representative sample of the general public in each country participated (excluding individuals with diabetes or pharmacologically treated obesity). An adapted Measurement and Valuation of Health protocol was administered 1:1 in web-enabled interviews by trained moderators: visual analogue scale (VAS) as a “warm-up”, and time trade-off (TTO) using a 20-year time horizon for utility elicitation.ResultsA total of 310 individuals participated. The average disutility of once-daily versus once-weekly GLP-1 RA was − 0.048 in obesity and − 0.033 in T2DM; the corresponding average disutility for insulin was − 0.064. Disutilities were substantially greater in China, relative to UK and Canada.DiscussionWithin obesity and T2DM, more-frequent treatment health states had lower utility. Scores by VAS also followed a logical order. The generated utility values are suitable for use in modelling injectable therapy regimens in obesity and T2DM, due to the use of generic descriptions and assumption of equal efficacy. Future research could examine the reasons for greater administration-related disutility in China.

Temporal Discounting of Money and Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Hoarding Level.

The current study examines the association of individual hoarding levels with temporal discounting of different commodities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on their hoarding level, participants were assigned to the Hoarding Group (HG) or the Non-Hoarding Group (NHG). Participants performed two delay discounting tasks: a traditional task with monetary options and a modified task, where money was replaced with disposable surgical masks, a needed commodity during the pandemic. Results revealed a stronger preference for immediate commodity, therefore a higher discount rate, when evaluating surgical masks compared to money in the whole sample, and an overall higher tendency in discounting both type of rewards in the NHG compared to the HG. Moreover, non-hoarders discounted money significantly more than hoarders, while no significant differences were detected in the surgical mask version of the task. Possible explanations for this result are discussed in the light of a situational frame that makes salient the notion of scarcity, like the one induced by the COVID-19 pandemic. The hoarding dimension of cluttering was found to be the only dimension to significantly correlate with the discount rate on surgical masks. Altogether, these findings shed light on the role of general hoarding level and specific hoarding dimensions on intertemporal preferences with different commodities by contributing to the theoretical debate about impulsivity in hoarders' behavior. Furthermore, the present results help to understand the general population's preferences during times of crisis, thus contributing to the investigation of the effects of COVID-19 on consumers' behavior.

To What Extent Do Patient Preferences Differ From General Population Preferences?

ObjectivesIn some countries including Germany, value sets based on general population preferences are not acceptable for decision-makers in healthcare because the impact of the reference group—general population versus patients—on utility decrements is questioned. The objective of this study was to explore potential differences in patient versus general population health preferences and a way of combining both preferences in economic evaluation. MethodsEQ-5D-5L general population preferences were available from national value sets in Germany and Spain. Patient preferences were obtained by conducting discrete choice experiments with patients with rheumatism and patients with diabetes mellitus in Germany and Spain using an online panel. The econometric approach was based on the conditional logit framework. Latent values were anchored using the national value sets. ResultsA total of 1700 patients (Germany, n = 937; Spain, n = 763) were included in the analysis. In both countries, patients gave more importance to mobility, self-care, or usual activities and less importance to pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression than the general population. The size of these differences was larger in Germany than in Spain. In Germany, preferences reported by both patient groups were more similar than in Spain. ConclusionPatient preferences differ from preferences derived from the general population. In contrast to the general population, patients gave more importance to the functional dimensions than to symptoms in both countries. The extent of the differences depends on the disease and the country. For countries preferring patient preferences, a possible way of incorporating the patient perspective in health state valuation was suggested and needs to be further explored.

Who Gets the Last Bed? A Discrete-Choice Experiment Examining General Population Preferences for Intensive Care Bed Prioritization in a Pandemic.

ObjectiveTo explore the key patient attributes important to members of the Australian general population when prioritizing patients for the final intensive care unit (ICU) bed in a pandemic over-capacity scenario.MethodsA discrete-choice experiment administered online asked respondents (N = 306) to imagine the COVID-19 caseload had surged and that they were lay members of a panel tasked to allocate the final ICU bed. They had to decide which patient was more deserving for each of 14 patient pairs. Patients were characterized by 5 attributes: age, occupation, caregiver status, health prior to being infected, and prognosis. Respondents were randomly allocated to one of 7 sets of 14 pairs. Multinomial, mixed logit, and latent class models were used to model the observed choice behavior.ResultsA latent class model with 3 classes was found to be the most informative. Two classes valued active decision making and were slightly more likely to choose patients with caregiving responsibilities over those without. One of these classes valued prognosis most strongly, with a decreasing probability of bed allocation for those 65 y and older. The other valued both prognosis and age highly, with decreasing probability of bed allocation for those 45 y and older and a slight preference in favor of frontline health care workers. The third class preferred more random decision-making strategies.ConclusionsFor two-thirds of those sampled, prognosis, age, and caregiving responsibilities were the important features when making allocation decisions, although the emphasis varies. The remainder appeared to choose randomly.

The Value of Preventative Dental Care: A Discrete-Choice Experiment

Scale and polish (SP) and oral hygiene advice (OHA) are commonly provided in primary care dental practice to help prevent periodontal disease. These services are widely consumed by service users, incurring substantial cost, without any clear evidence of clinical benefit. This article aims to elicit general population preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for preventative dental care services and outcomes. An online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was completed by a nationally representative sample of the UK general population. Respondents each answered 10 choice tasks that varied in terms of service attributes (SP, OHA, and provider of care), outcomes (bleeding gums and aesthetics), and cost. Choice tasks were selected using a pivoted segmented experimental design to improve task realism. An error components panel logit model was used to analyze the data. Marginal WTP (mWTP) for each attribute and level was calculated. In total, 667 respondents completed the DCE. Respondents valued more frequent SP, care provided by a dentist, and personalized OHA. Respondents were willing to pay for dental packages that generated less frequent (“never” or “hardly ever”) bleeding on brushing and teeth that look and feel at least “moderately clean.” Respondents were willing to pay more (+£145/y) for improvements in an aesthetic outcome from “very unclean” (−£85/y) to “very clean” (+£60/y) than they were for reduced bleeding frequency (+£100/y) from “very often” (−£54/y) to “never” (+£36/y). The general population value routinely provided SP, even in the absence of reductions in bleeding on brushing. Dental care service providers must consider service user preferences, including preferences for both health and nonhealth outcomes, as a key factor in any service redesign. Furthermore, the results provide mWTP estimates that can be used in cost-benefit analysis of these dental care services.