PATIENT-PERCEIVED VALUE, PREFERENCE, AND ACCEPTABILITY OF A NOVEL ORAL DRUG DELIVERY TECHNOLOGY: IMPLICATIONS FOR TREATMENT DECISION-MAKING
Author(s)
Caroline Buhl, MSc1, Jesús Sánchez, PhD2, Anna Birna Almarsdóttir, PhD1, Lene Havsteen, MSc3, Karsten Lindhardt, PhD3, Lourdes Cantarero Arevalo, PhD1.
1Department of Pharmacy, WHO Collaborating Centre for the Patient Perspective on Medicine Use, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2Department of Sociobehavioral and Administrative Pharmacy, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 3Biograil ApS, Roskilde, Denmark.
1Department of Pharmacy, WHO Collaborating Centre for the Patient Perspective on Medicine Use, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2Department of Sociobehavioral and Administrative Pharmacy, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 3Biograil ApS, Roskilde, Denmark.
OBJECTIVES: Novel drug delivery technologies may reduce the burden associated with injectable therapies, yet their relevance depends on how patients perceive their value and how they fit into everyday life. This study explored how patients evaluate a novel oral drug delivery technology and identified factors influencing acceptability, preference, and treatment decision-making.
METHODS: A qualitative focus group study was conducted in Denmark and the United States as part of a mixed-methods project. Patient partners contributed during the design phase by reviewing study materials and the interview guide. Adults living with chronic conditions (rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes, obesity) and members of the public were included. Participants received standardized information about the technology and engaged in semi-structured discussions. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis with systematic coding to identify domains shaping perceived value, acceptability, preferences, and decision-making.
RESULTS: 90 participants across 16 focus groups and one interview evaluated the technology through interrelated domains, including treatment burden, emotional impact, fit with daily routines, environmental considerations, and conditions for use. The oral delivery approach was generally perceived to reduce burden and support normalcy compared with injections. However, acceptability and preferences were conditional, depending on perceived effectiveness, safety, usability, cost, and individual context. Decision-making reflected trade-offs rather than fixed preferences, highlighting the contextual and experiential nature of evaluations. Willingness to use depended on confidence in reliability, compatibility with routines, and access to clear information.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients do not simply prefer oral over injections but construct value through multidimensional trade-offs that shape treatment decisions. Understanding these processes is critical for integrating patient perspectives into design, development, and communication. These findings highlight the value of qualitative approaches for capturing patient perspectives that are not readily identified through quantitative methods. When applied early in the development, such insights may support patient-centered decision-making and improve real-world uptake of novel drug delivery technologies.
METHODS: A qualitative focus group study was conducted in Denmark and the United States as part of a mixed-methods project. Patient partners contributed during the design phase by reviewing study materials and the interview guide. Adults living with chronic conditions (rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes, obesity) and members of the public were included. Participants received standardized information about the technology and engaged in semi-structured discussions. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis with systematic coding to identify domains shaping perceived value, acceptability, preferences, and decision-making.
RESULTS: 90 participants across 16 focus groups and one interview evaluated the technology through interrelated domains, including treatment burden, emotional impact, fit with daily routines, environmental considerations, and conditions for use. The oral delivery approach was generally perceived to reduce burden and support normalcy compared with injections. However, acceptability and preferences were conditional, depending on perceived effectiveness, safety, usability, cost, and individual context. Decision-making reflected trade-offs rather than fixed preferences, highlighting the contextual and experiential nature of evaluations. Willingness to use depended on confidence in reliability, compatibility with routines, and access to clear information.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients do not simply prefer oral over injections but construct value through multidimensional trade-offs that shape treatment decisions. Understanding these processes is critical for integrating patient perspectives into design, development, and communication. These findings highlight the value of qualitative approaches for capturing patient perspectives that are not readily identified through quantitative methods. When applied early in the development, such insights may support patient-centered decision-making and improve real-world uptake of novel drug delivery technologies.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
PCR171
Topic
Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient Behavior and Incentives, Patient Engagement, Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Disease
Biologics & Biosimilars, Diabetes/Endocrine/Metabolic Disorders (including obesity), Musculoskeletal Disorders (Arthritis, Bone Disorders, Osteoporosis, Other Musculoskeletal), Systemic Disorders/Conditions (Anesthesia, Auto-Immune Disorders (n.e.c.), Hematological Disorders (non-oncologic), Pain)