IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v17y2024i2d10.1007_s40271-023-00650-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

Author

Listed:
  • Rachael L. DiSantostefano

    (Janssen Research & Development LLC)

  • Ian P. Smith

    (Janssen Research & Development LLC
    University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University)

  • Marie Falahee

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Aura Cecilia Jiménez-Moreno

    (Patient-Centered Research)

  • Serena Oliveri

    (IEO IRCCS)

  • Jorien Veldwijk

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • G. Ardine Wit

    (University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University)

  • Ellen M. Janssen

    (Janssen Research & Development LLC)

  • Conny Berlin

    (Novartis Pharma AG)

  • Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn

    (University of Twente)

Abstract

Background and Objective There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community. Methods Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design. Results One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice. Conclusions As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachael L. DiSantostefano & Ian P. Smith & Marie Falahee & Aura Cecilia Jiménez-Moreno & Serena Oliveri & Jorien Veldwijk & G. Ardine Wit & Ellen M. Janssen & Conny Berlin & Catharina G. M. Groothuis-, 2024. "Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(2), pages 179-190, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00650-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00650-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-023-00650-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-023-00650-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00650-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.