OBJECTIVES:  Treatment satisfaction is an important predictor of real-world medication adherence in chronic medical conditions such as asthma and COPD. The objective of this study was to identify and describe measures used to assess treatment satisfaction and preference in patients with asthma and/or COPD. METHODS:  A targeted literature review was conducted in EMBASE and PubMed to identify studies utilizing validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments or study-specific questionnaires and published in 2000-2015. Domains measured by each PRO/questionnaire were recorded to understand important treatment characteristics related to treatment satisfaction and preference. RESULTS:  Of 456 abstracts reviewed, 28 studies met all study inclusion/exclusion criteria. Of 19 studies evaluating treatment satisfaction, 11 used validated PRO instruments, 8 used non-validated questionnaires, and 7 validated PROs were identified. The most commonly used instruments were the Patient Satisfaction and Preference Questionnaire (PASAPQ), the Onset of Effect Questionnaire (OEQ), and the Patient Satisfaction with Asthma Medication (PSAM). Key domains measured were symptom relief, treatment effectiveness, ease of use, side effects, and overall satisfaction. Of 13 studies evaluating treatment preference, 3 used validated PRO instruments and 10 used non-validated questionnaires. Only one validated PRO was identified: the PASAPQ, an instrument which includes both treatment satisfaction and preference items and that was developed for use in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS:  It is important to identify and consider factors associated with treatment satisfaction and preference to ensure high levels of medication adherence. The use of disease-specific, validated PROs to demonstrate real-world satisfaction with or preference of asthma and/or COPD treatments can provide a wealth of knowledge for patient care moving forward. Careful consideration should be made in the selection of PROs as there are a limited number of available validated instruments and some may not be appropriate for all study designs (e.g., cross-sectional patient survey).