International Team Maps Disease Areas Prime for Patient Preference Data Transfer: Type 2 Diabetes, Psoriasis, Cancer, Multiple Sclerosis
Lawrenceville, NJ, USA—September 15, 2025—Value in Health, the official journal of ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research, announced today the publication of a landmark scoping review that provides a comprehensive mapping of patient preference studies across key medical domains, revealing the first robust evidence base for advancing meta-analyses and benefit transfer methods in healthcare decision-making. The study also holds the distinction of being the first article published in Value in Health to receive an Open Science Badge, specifically earning the Preregistered badge for its commitment to research transparency. The report, “Do We Always Need a New Preference Study? A Scoping Review of Promising Research Areas for Meta-Analyses and Benefit Transfers of Patient Preference Studies” was published in the September 2025 issue of Value in Health.
Led by a global team of health preference research experts—Michael Bui, Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno, Byron Jones, Conny Berlin and Janine van Til—the review addresses a critical question in healthcare policy: do we always need to conduct new patient preference studies, or can findings from previous studies be transferred or synthesized for use in new decision-making contexts?
“Patient preference information—data on what outcomes and trade-offs patients value when considering treatment options—is increasingly important for drug development, regulatory review, and reimbursement decisions," said author Michael Bui, MSc, Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. “However, patient preference studies are costly and time-consuming to conduct. Nevertheless, their results are rarely used beyond their original purpose. The potential for ”benefit transfer”—reusing or adapting preference findings from one context to another—could make this research more efficient and particularly impactful in settings where de novo studies are infeasible to conduct.”
Recognizing that reusing or transferring results from existing patient preference studies could make better use of the resultant data, the authors aimed to systematically assess whether the current landscape of patient preference studies is suitable for evidence synthesis and benefit transfer. Their goal was to identify areas where findings from previous studies could be reliably applied to new contexts, thereby supporting more efficient and sustainable use of patient preference information in healthcare decision making and medical product development.
Key findings:
- The Landscape Is Dispersed, but Type 2 Diabetes Is a Standout: The review found that most patient preference studies use discrete choice experiments, with the largest concentration of studies in type 2 diabetes. In diabetes, there is a high level of consistency in study methods, outcomes assessed (eg, glycemic control, hypoglycemia, weight change, cost), and reported preference parameters. This consistency makes diabetes an especially promising area for benefit transfer and meta-analysis.
- Other Indications Are More Diverse: In areas like cancer, psoriasis, and multiple sclerosis, studies are more heterogeneous in design, making direct benefit transfer more challenging—but not impossible. Evidence syntheses and meta-analyses seem feasible in some of these areas, especially when focusing on common endpoints.
- Reporting and Quality Are Barriers: The review highlights challenges for benefit transfer, including incomplete reporting of study details, differences in attribute definitions, and stringent criteria for study quality. Emerging reporting guidelines, disease-specific libraries of attribute definitions, and quality appraisal tools can help address these gaps.
- Resource Optimization: The findings suggest that in some high-volume, methodologically consistent areas (notably type 2 diabetes), it may be both practical and efficient to transfer or meta-analyze existing patient preference data rather than repeatedly conducting new studies. This could accelerate decision making, reduce patient burden, and better utilize research resources. Nevertheless, de novo studies remain crucial when existing studies are insufficiently fit for purpose.
While the patient preference literature is generally dispersed, the results of this study suggest that discrete choice experiments in type 2 diabetes, psoriasis, cancer, and multiple sclerosis offer a promising starting point to explore benefit transfers of patient preference information. While there are still methodological challenges to be overcome, the authors foresee a positive outlook for advancements in conducting benefit transfers of patient preference information.
As noted, the research team's dedication to information sharing and methodological rigor was recognized when their study became the inaugural recipient of Value in Health's new Open Science Badge program. The preregistered badge acknowledges that the study's protocol was publicly documented before data examination began, setting a new standard for research transparency.
Further Reading
###
ABOUT ISPOR
ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR), is an international, multistakeholder, nonprofit dedicated to advancing HEOR excellence to improve decision making for health globally. The Society is the leading source for scientific conferences, peer-reviewed and MEDLINE®-indexed publications, good practices guidance, education, collaboration, and tools/resources in the field.
Website | LinkedIn | Twitter (@ispororg) | YouTube | Facebook | Instagram
ABOUT VALUE IN HEALTH
Value in Health (ISSN 1098-3015) is an international, indexed journal that publishes original research and health policy articles that advance the field of health economics and outcomes research to help healthcare leaders make evidence-based decisions. The journal’s current impact factor score is 6.0 and its 5-year impact factor score is 5.7. Value in Health is ranked 5th of 124 journals in Health Policy and Services, 12th of 185 journals in Health Care Sciences & Services, and 37th of 617 journals in Economics. Value in Health is a monthly publication that circulates to more than 55,000 readers around the world.
Website | Twitter (@isporjournals)