IntroductionBest–worst scaling (BWS) is becoming increasingly popular to elicit preferences in health care. However, little is known about current practice and trends in the use of BWS in health care. This study aimed to identify, review and critically appraise BWS in health care, and to identify trends over time in key aspects of BWS.MethodsA systematic review was conducted, using Medline (via Pubmed) and EMBASE to identify all English-language BWS studies published up until April 2016. Using a predefined extraction form, two reviewers independently selected articles and critically appraised the study quality, using the Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance (PREFS) checklist. Trends over time periods (≤2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015) were assessed further.ResultsA total of 62 BWS studies were identified, of which 26 were BWS object case studies, 29 were BWS profile case studies and seven were BWS multi-profile case studies. About two thirds of the studies were performed in the last 2 years. Decreasing sample sizes and decreasing numbers of factors in BWS object case studies, as well as use of less complicated analytical methods, were observed in recent studies. The quality of the BWS studies was generally acceptable according to the PREFS checklist, except that most studies did not indicate whether the responders were similar to the non-responders.ConclusionUse of BWS object case and BWS profile case has drastically increased in health care, especially in the last 2 years. In contrast with previous discrete-choice experiment reviews, there is increasing use of less sophisticated analytical methods.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0429-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We reviewed the literature on the use of text messaging for clinical and healthy behaviour interventions. Electronic databases were searched in December 2009 using keywords related to text messaging and health interventions. The final review included 24 articles. Of those, seven covered medication adherence, eight discussed clinical management and nine reported on health-related behaviour modification. Sixteen were randomized controlled trials (RCT), five were non-controlled pre-post comparison studies and three were feasibility pilots not reporting a behavioural outcome. The frequency of messaging ranged from multiple messages daily to one message per month. Among the 16 RCTs, 10 reported significant improvement with interventions and six reported differences suggesting positive trends. Text messaging received good acceptance and showed early efficacy in most studies. However, the evidence base is compromised by methodological limitations and is not yet conclusive.

Background: Formative qualitative research is foundational to the methodological development process of quantitative health preference research (HPR). Despite its ability to improve the validity of the quantitative evidence, formative qualitative research is underreported.Objective: To improve the frequency and quality of reporting, we developed guidelines for reporting this type of research. The guidelines focus on formative qualitative research used to develop robust and acceptable quantitative study protocols and corresponding survey instruments in HPR.Methods: In December 2018, a steering committee was formed as a means to accumulate the expertise of the HPR community on the reporting guidelines (21 members, seven countries, multiple settings, and disciplines). Using existing guidelines and examples, the committee constructed, revised, and refined the guidelines. The guidelines underwent beta-testing by three researchers and further revision to the guidelines were made based on their feedback as well as from comments from members of the International Academy of Health Preference Research (IAHPR) and the editorial board of The Patient.Results: The guidelines have five components: introductory material (4 domains); methods (12); results/findings (2); discussion (2); and other (2). They are concordant with existing guidelines, published examples, beta testing results, and expert comments.Conclusions: Publishing formative qualitative research is a necessary step towards strengthening the foundation of any quantitative study, enhancing the relevance of its preference evidence. The guidelines should aid researchers, reviewers and regulatory agencies as well as promote transparency within HPR more broadly. Key Points for Decision Makers• These are the first guidelines on reporting formative qualitative research on patient experience that support the development of quantitative preference study protocols and corresponding instruments. • These guidelines focus on reporting techniques that enhance transparency and trustworthiness, thereby improving the likelihood that the scientific contributions of quantitative preference studies are well-founded, improving the validity of the quantitative evidence.

We present a model process for advocacy organizations aiming to promote patient-centered drug development. The community-engaged approach was successfully used to develop and implement a survey to measure caregiver preferences. Caregivers were willing to accept a serious risk when balanced with a noncurative treatment, even absent improvement in life span. These preferences should inform the Food and Drug Administration's benefit-risk assessment of emerging DMD therapies. This study highlights the synergistic integration of traditional advocacy methods and scientific approach to quantify benefit-risk preferences.

The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) supports research programs aimed at improving care and building a successful drug development pipeline. To ensure its research agenda meets the needs of the community it serves, the CFF sought community input into clinical research prioritization for topics not well-known as already being addressed by CFF-funded research. In 2018, clinical researchers, adults with CF, and family members were surveyed about a broad range of research topics that are perceived to receive less attention. We compared responses from researchers (n = 19) and community members (n = 135) and found groups aligned on their top three research priorities: 1) respiratory microorganism detection and treatment, 2) mental health, and 3) reducing treatment burden. We also explored whether or not those priorities align with the CFF research portfolio. Cognizance of researcher and community priorities can help inform clinical research endeavors to improve the health and wellbeing of people affected by CF.