Plain Language Summary

What is it about? Patient preference studies (studies about what patients value in healthcare) are often expensive and time-consuming. Yet, their results are usually not used beyond the original study's purpose. This study addressed the problem of minimal reuse of patient preference information by exploring whether findings from one study could be applied to others through a method called benefit transfer. This research is important because if these findings could be applied in other contexts, it could save healthcare resources. The paper proposes using established guidelines from environmental economics to assess the readiness of existing studies for such transfers. The central contribution of this study is identifying disease areas where benefit transfer is feasible.

How was the research conducted? The researchers systematically searched through the digital databases of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify quantitative patient preference studies. They specifically looked for studies that examined health risks and/or benefits of treatments. The research involved a scoping review, a method that helps map the existing literature on a topic. For each study, the researchers compiled information on the examined disease area, the treatment aspects for which patient preferences were measured, and the type of survey that was used to measure preferences. These data are core characteristics that need to be sufficiently similar between studies to facilitate benefit transfers.

What were the results? The main finding was that a large number of patient preference studies exist, with many specifically using discrete choice experiments as their survey instrument. Notably, the studies showed promise for benefit transfers in type 2 diabetes due to high study volume and consistent study designs. Other therapeutic areas for which potential candidates for benefit transfers were identified were psoriasis and multiple sclerosis. A surprising result was that across the 777 studies that were analyzed, only a handful of disease areas seemed promising for exploring benefit transfers at this time.

Why are the results important? These results are significant because they show that patient preference study findings could potentially be reused in new contexts. Practically, this could lead to changes in how healthcare resources are allocated and how new medical products are developed. Further developments in the benefit transfer methodology could be of interest to patient populations in which resources for research are limited. In the long term, benefit transfers may offer alternative solutions to integrate the patient voice into medical product development in settings where preference studies are challenging or infeasible to conduct.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of this study? A major strength of this study is its comprehensive approach to mapping the landscape of patient preference studies, which offers detailed insights into where benefit transfers are most feasible based on technical requirements. However, a limitation is that the contextual factors that explain differences in patient preferences between different settings remain largely unknown. Future research could focus on identifying these factors so they can be adjusted for upon transferring preferences from one setting to another.

Note: This content was created with assistance from artificial intelligence (AI) and has been reviewed and edited by ISPOR staff. For more information or for inquiries on ISPOR’s AI policy, click here or contact us at info@ispor.org.