Background As the number and type of cancer treatments available rises and patients live with the consequences of their disease and treatments for longer, understanding preferences for cancer care can help inform decisions about optimal treatment development, access, and care provision. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used as a tool to elicit stakeholder preferences; however, their implementation in oncology may be challenging if burdensome trade-offs (e.g. length of life versus quality of life) are involved and/or target populations are small. Objectives The aim of this review was to characterise DCEs relating to cancer treatments that were conducted between 1990 and March 2020. Data Sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant studies. Study Eligibility Criteria Studies were included if they implemented a DCE and reported outcomes of interest (i.e. quantitative outputs on participants' preferences for cancer treatments), but were excluded if they were not focused on pharmacological, radiological or surgical treatments (e.g. cancer screening or counselling services), were non-English, or were a secondary analysis of an included study. Analysis Methods Analysis followed a narrative synthesis, and quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, including rankings of attribute importance. Result Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. The number of published DCEs relating to oncology grew over the review period. Studies were conducted in a range of indications (n = 19), most commonly breast (n =10, 13%) and prostate (n = 9, 11%) cancer, and most studies elicited preferences of patients (n = 59, 75%). Across reviewed studies, survival attributes were commonly ranked as most important, with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) ranked most important in 58% and 28% of models, respectively. Preferences varied between stakeholder groups, with patients and clinicians placing greater importance on survival outcomes, and general population samples valuing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite the emphasis of guidelines on the importance of using qualitative research to inform attribute selection and DCE designs, reporting on instrument development was mixed. Limitations No formal assessment of bias was conducted, with the scope of the paper instead providing a descriptive characterisation. The review only included DCEs relating to cancer treatments, and no insight is provided into other health technologies such as cancer screening. Only DCEs were included. Conclusions and Implications Although there was variation in attribute importance between responder types, survival attributes were consistently ranked as important by both patients and clinicians. Observed challenges included the risk of attribute dominance for survival outcomes, limited sample sizes in some indications, and a lack of reporting about instrument development processes. Protocol Registration PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020184232.

Background Although several self-injectable preventive treatments for migraine have become available, they are not yet widely used. Thus, understanding patients' perceptions towards them is limited. Objective This study aimed to inform the design of a preference-elicitation instrument, which is being developed to quantify preventive treatment preferences of people with migraine. Methods We conducted a qualitative study involving nine in-person focus groups (three per country) in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Participants were adults (n = 47) with episodic or chronic migraine who were currently using or had used a prescription preventive treatment for migraine within the previous 5 years. During the focus groups, participants described their experiences of migraine and preventive treatments; handled and simulated self-injection using five different unbranded, fired demonstration auto-injectors and prefilled syringes; and ranked different aspects of preventive treatments by importance. Focus groups were analyzed with a focus on themes that would be feasible or meaningful to include in a subsequent preference-elicitation instrument. Results Reducing the frequency and severity of migraine attacks was consistently ranked as the most important aspect of preventive treatment. Participants expressed dissatisfaction with available daily oral preventive treatments for migraine they had previously used because they were ineffective or caused intolerable adverse events. Many participants were willing to selfinject a treatment that was effective and tolerable. When presented with devices for self-injecting a preventive treatment for migraine, participants generally preferred autoinjectors over prefilled syringes. Participants especially valued safety features such as the unlocking step and automated needle insertion, and audible and visual dose confirmation increased confidence in autoinjector use. Autoinjector needle protection mechanisms were also appreciated, especially by participants averse to needles, as the needles are not visible. Conclusions This study highlights the fact that many people with migraine still lack access to a preventive treatment that is effective and tolerable. In addition to efficacy and safety considerations, treatment decisions may be guided by the mode of administration. In the case of self-injectable preventive treatments, key device characteristics affecting these decisions may be ease of use, comfort, and confidence in self-injection. Insights gained from this study were used to help develop a preliminary set of attributes and levels for a preference-elicitation instrument.

ObjectivesWe aimed to quantify patient preferences for efficacy, safety and convenience features of atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments.Design and settingOnline discrete choice experiment survey.ParticipantsAdults in the UK, France and Spain who had used AD treatments during the past 2 years.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPreferences for attributes were analysed using a multinomial logit model. Willingness to make trade-offs was expressed as the maximum acceptable decrease (MAD) in the probability of achieving clear/almost clear skin at week 16.ResultsThe survey was completed by 404 patients (44.1±12.0 years; 65% women; 64% moderate/severe eczema). Most patients (68%) had no prior experience of using self-injectable treatments for AD or any other illness. Participants most valued increasing the chance of achieving a meaningful reduction in itch at week 16 from 20% to 50%, followed by reducing the risks of serious infections from 6% to 0% and of eye inflammation from 20% to 0%. Participants were willing to accept a decrease in the possibility of achieving clear/almost clear skin to obtain a treatment that can be paused (MAD=24.1%), requires occasional check-ups (MAD=16.1%) or no check-ups (MAD=20.9%) over frequent check-ups, is administered as a one time per day or two times per day oral pill versus a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks (MAD=16.6%), has a 2-day over 2-week onset of action (MAD=11.3%), and can be used for flare management (MAD=5.8%).ConclusionsAlthough patients with AD most valued treatment benefits and risks, they were willing to tolerate reduced efficacy to obtain a rapid onset, oral administration, less frequent monitoring and a treatment that can be paused. Understanding patients’ preferences for AD therapies, including new targeted therapies, can aid shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and support health technology assessments.

Aside from loving God, the hallmark of a Christ-filled life is to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Mark 12:31). Thus, spiritual formation should be evidenced by an increased depth and breadth of love for others. Using qualitative (Study 1) and quantitative (Study 2) methods, we explored how sharing a meal and fellowshipping with a member of a marginalized group (a theological practice) shaped college students’ perceptions of their unhoused neighbors. Results demonstrated that students recognized human-like traits associated with an individual experiencing homelessness after a shared meal, but that the encounters did not significantly reduce the dehumanization of individuals experiencing homelessness as a whole (relative to a control no dinner condition). In addition to theoretical implications for psychologists interested in intergroup contact, our findings have implications for those trying to cultivate Christian virtues such as neighbor love through classroom or ministerial practices.

Introduction: Information about patient preferences for the treatment of anaemia associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is scarce. Hence, our aim was to examine how patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD valued attributes of alternative hypothetical anaemia treatments. Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in adult patients who reported a clinical diagnosis of CKD-related anaemia. Treatment attributes included mode and frequency of administration, need for iron supplementation, risk of gastrointestinal side effects, risk of major cardiovascular events and impact on energy levels (as defined by the vitality section of the SF-6D health index). Logit models were used to analyse patients' preferences. Results: The DCE was completed by 200 patients in four countries. Patients preferred an oral mode of administration. Patients were willing to tolerate a 5.1% (95% CI 2.0-8.3%) increase in the risk of a major cardiovascular event and an 11.7% (95% CI 5.0-18.5%) increase in the risk of gastrointestinal side effects to switch from an at-home subcutaneous injection administered once every 2 weeks to an at-home oral pill administered three times a week. Patients were willing to tolerate a 20.3% (95% CI 15.0-25.6%) increase in the risk of gastrointestinal side effects and an 8.9% (95% CI 6.1-11.7%) increase in the risk of a major cardiovascular event to transition from 'Sometimes having a lot of energy' to 'Always having a lot of energy'. Conclusions: Patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD-related anaemia demonstrated clear treatment preferences and were willing to accept increased gastrointestinal or cardiovascular risks in exchange for more energy or an oral treatment.