Introduction Preference elicitation methods help to increase patient-centred medical decision making (MDM) by measuring benefit and value. Preferences can be applied in decisions regarding reimbursement, including health technology assessment (HTA); market access, including benefit-risk assessment (BRA); and clinical care. These three decision contexts have different requirements for use and elicitation of preferences. Objectives This systematic review identified studies using preference elicitation methods and summarized methodological and practical characteristics within the requirements of the three contexts. Methods The search terms included those related to MDM and patient preferences. Only articles with original data from quantitative preference elicitation methods were included. Results The selected articles (n = 322) included 379 preference elicitation methods, comprising matching methods [MM] (n = 71, 18.7 %), discrete choice experiments [DCEs] (n = 96, 25.3 %), multi-criteria decision analysis (n = 12, 3.2 %) and other methods (n = 200, 52.8 %; i.e. rating scales, which provide estimates inconsistent with utility theory). Most publications of preference elicitation methods had an intended use in clinical decisions (n = 134, 40 %). Fewer preference studies had an intended use in HTA (n = 68, 20 %) or BRA (n = 12, 4 %). In clinical decisions, rating, ranking, visual analogue scales and direct choice are used most often. In HTA, DCEs and MM are both used frequently, and elicitation of preferences in BRA was limited to DCEs. Conclusion Relatively simple preference methods are often adequate in clinical decisions because they are easy to administer and have a low cognitive burden. MM and DCE fulfil the requirements of HTA and BRA but are complex for respondents. No preference elicitation methods with a low cognitive burden could adequately inform HTA and BRA decisions. Key PointsPreference elicitation methods can be used to quantify relative benefits and to value various aspects of a drug or health states.Most studies found in the current literature identify preferences for guiding clinical decisions.Fewer preference studies directly support reimbursement (health technology assessment [HTA]) or market access (benefit-risk assessment [BRA]) decisions.Clinical decisions require more patient-friendly and straightforward preference methods.Matching methods and discrete choice experiments fulfil almost all of the contexts' requirements of BRA and HTA. However, those methods can be cognitively complex for the respondents if the number of attributes is large or the attributes are difficult to understand. Marieke G. M. Weernink and Sarah I. M. Janus contributed equally to this work. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

ObjectivesTo explore patient preference for vascular access site in percutaneous coronary procedures, the perceived importance of benefits and risks of transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA) were assessed. In addition, direct preference for vascular access and preference for shared decision making (SDM) were evaluated.BackgroundTRA has gained significant ground on TFA during the last decades. Surveys on patient preference have mostly been performed in dedicated TRA trials.MethodsIn the PREVAS study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02625493) a stated preference elicitation method best‐worst scaling (BWS) was used to determine patient preference for six treatment attributes: bleeding, switch of access‐site, postprocedural vessel quality, mobilization and comfort, and over‐night stay. Based on software‐generated treatment scenarios, 142 patients indicated which characteristics they perceived most and least important in treatment choice. Best‐minus‐Worst scores and attribute importance were calculated.ResultsBleeding risk was considered most important (attribute importance 31.3%), followed by length of hospitalization (22.6%), and mobilization(20.2%). Most patients preferred the approach of their current procedure (85.9%); however, 71.1% of patients with experience with both access routes favored TRA (P < 0.001). Most patients (38.0%) appreciated SDM, balanced between patient and cardiologist.ConclusionsPatients appreciate lower bleeding risk and early ambulation, factors favoring TRA. Previous experience with a single access route has a major impact on preference, while experience with both routes generally resulted in preference for TRA. Most patients prefer balanced SDM. © 2017 The Authors Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background Patient decision aids should help people make evidence-informed decisions aligned with their values. There is limited guidance about how to achieve such alignment. Purpose To describe the range of values clarification methods available to patient decision aid developers, synthesize evidence regarding their relative merits, and foster collection of evidence by offering researchers a proposed set of outcomes to report when evaluating the effects of values clarification methods. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Study Selection We included articles that described randomized trials of 1 or more explicit values clarification methods. From 30,648 records screened, we identified 33 articles describing trials of 43 values clarification methods. Data Extraction Two independent reviewers extracted details about each values clarification method and its evaluation. Data Synthesis Compared to control conditions or to implicit values clarification methods, explicit values clarification methods decreased the frequency of values-incongruent choices (risk difference, –0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.06 to –0.02; P < 0.001) and decisional conflict (standardized mean difference, –0.20; 95% CI, –0.29 to –0.11; P < 0.001). Multicriteria decision analysis led to more values-congruent decisions than other values clarification methods (χ2 = 9.25, P = 0.01). There were no differences between different values clarification methods regarding decisional conflict (χ2 = 6.08, P = 0.05). Limitations Some meta-analyses had high heterogeneity. We grouped values clarification methods into broad categories. Conclusions Current evidence suggests patient decision aids should include an explicit values clarification method. Developers may wish to specifically consider multicriteria decision analysis. Future evaluations of values clarification methods should report their effects on decisional conflict, decisions made, values congruence, and decisional regret.

Vitamin D insufficiency during pregnancy is associated with disturbed skeletal homeostasis during infancy. Our aim was to investigate the influence of adherence to recommendations for vitamin D supplement intake of 10 μg per day (400 IU) during pregnancy (mother) and in the first months of life (child) on the occurrence of positional skull deformation of the child at the age of 2 to 4 months. In an observational case-control study, two hundred seventy-five 2- to 4-month-old cases with positional skull deformation were compared with 548 matched controls. A questionnaire was used to gather information on background characteristics and vitamin D intake (food, time spent outdoors and supplements). In a multiple variable logistic regression analysis, insufficient vitamin D supplement intake of women during the last trimester of pregnancy [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.86, 95% (CI) 1.27-2.70] and of children during early infancy (aOR 7.15, 95% CI 3.77-13.54) were independently associated with an increased risk of skull deformation during infancy. These associations were evident after adjustment for the associations with skull deformation that were present with younger maternal age and lower maternal education, shorter pregnancy duration, assisted vaginal delivery, male gender and milk formula consumption after birth. Our findings suggest that non-adherence to recommendations for vitamin D supplement use by pregnant women and infants are associated with a higher risk of positional skull deformation in infants at 2 to 4 months of age. Our study provides an early infant life example of the importance of adequate vitamin D intake during pregnancy and infancy.

IntroductionLittle is known about how patients weigh benefits and harms of available treatments for Parkinson’s Disease (oral medication, deep brain stimulation, infusion therapy). In this study we have (1) elicited patient preferences for benefits, side effects and process characteristics of treatments and (2) measured patients’ preferred and perceived involvement in decision-making about treatment.MethodsPreferences were elicited using a best-worst scaling case 2 experiment. Attributes were selected based on 18 patient-interviews: treatment modality, tremor, slowness of movement, posture and balance problems, drowsiness, dizziness, and dyskinesia. Subsequently, a questionnaire was distributed in which patients were asked to indicate the most and least desirable attribute in nine possible treatment scenarios. Conditional logistic analysis and latent class analysis were used to estimate preference weights and identify subgroups. Patients also indicated their preferred and perceived degree of involvement in treatment decision-making (ranging from active to collaborative to passive).ResultsTwo preference patterns were found in the patient sample (N = 192). One class of patients focused largely on optimising the process of care, while the other class focused more on controlling motor-symptoms. Patients who had experienced advanced treatments, had a shorter disease duration, or were still employed were more likely to belong to the latter class. For both classes, the benefits of treatment were more influential than the described side effects. Furthermore, many patients (45%) preferred to take the lead in treatment decisions, however 10.8% perceived a more passive or collaborative role instead.DiscussionPatients weighted the benefits and side effects of treatment differently, indicating there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to choosing treatments. Moreover, many patients preferred an active role in decision-making about treatment. Both results stress the need for physicians to know what is important to patients and to share treatment decisions to ensure that patients receive the treatment that aligns with their preferences.