UNASSIGNED: There is a growing interest in personalized decision-making in oncology. According to the Integrated Oncological Decision-Making Model (IODM), decisions should be based on information from three domains: (1) medical technical information, (2) patients\' general health status and (3) patients\' preferences and goals. Little is known about what kind of tool/strategy is used to collect the information, by whom this is collected (nurse, clinician) when this is collected (moment in the care pathway), and how this information should be collected and integrated within decision-making in oncological care pathways, and what its impact is.
UNASSIGNED: We searched PUBMED, Embase and Web of Science in October 2023 for studies looking at tools to collect and integrate information from the three domains of the IODM. We extracted data on the content and implementation of these tools, and on decision and patient outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: The search yielded 2576 publications, of which only seven studies described collection of information from all three domains (inclusion criteria). In the seven included studies, information on the three domains was collected through dialogue, questionnaires, and assessments (what) by a nurse (2 out of 7 studies) or by other members of the Multi-Disciplinary Team (by whom) (5 out of 7 studies). Members of the Multi-Disciplinary Team subsequently integrated the information (5 out 7 studies) during their meeting (when), with patients and family attending this meeting in 2 studies (how). In terms of decision outcomes, 5 out of 7 studies compared the treatment recommendations before and after implementation of the tools, showing a modification of the treatment plan in 3% to 53% of cases. The limited data on patient outcomes suggest positive effects on well-being and fewer complications (3 out of 7 studies).
UNASSIGNED: The seven studies identified that integrated information from the three IODM domains into treatment decision-making lacked comprehensive information regarding the strategies, process, timing and individuals involved in implementing the tools. Nevertheless, the few studies that looked at patient outcomes showed promising findings.

Cabotegravir (CAB-LA), the only Food and Drug Administration-approved injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), is effective and may address PrEP uptake disparities among Black and Latino sexual and gender minority (SGM) men. Uptake of CAB-LA may require developing innovative non-clinic-based care delivery strategies in home-based settings. We explored SGM men\'s opinions on a future home-based CAB-LA PrEP care service to guide the adaptation of PrEP@Home, an existing home-based PrEP system for oral PrEP. Through 14 in-depth interviews with current or former SGM male participants in the PrEP@Home study, we explored the acceptability of a home-based injectable PrEP system and examined visit and communication-related preferences. All participants considered home-based CAB-LA care to be acceptable and 8/14 would utilize the system if available. Convenience and comfort with using a home-based system impacted the overall acceptance of the approach. Factors influencing acceptability included clinical teams\' affiliation with healthcare systems, a credentialed two-person team, and staff identity verification methods. Logistical preferences included communicating pre-visit patient instructions, allowing flexible scheduling hours, and the use of text, phone calls, or mobile app communication methods based on urgency. Conclusively, a home-based CAB-LA PrEP delivery system was acceptable among the interviewed SGM men, guiding its development and future implementation.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03569813.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: A positivity threshold is often applied to markers or predicted risks to guide disease management. These rules are often decided exclusively by clinical experts despite being sensitive to the preferences of patients and general public as ultimate stakeholders.
METHODS: We propose an analytical framework for quantifying the net benefit of an evidence-based positivity threshold based on combining preference-sensitive (e.g., how individuals weight benefits and harms of treatment) and preference-agnostic (e.g., the magnitude of benefit and the risk of harm) parameters. We propose parsimonious choice experiments to elicit preference-sensitive parameters from stakeholders, and evidence synthesis to quantify the value of preference-agnostic parameters. We apply this framework to maintenance azithromycin therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to estimate preference weights for attribute level associated with treatment. We identify the positivity threshold on 12-month moderate or severe exacerbation risk that would maximize the net benefit of treatment in terms of severe exacerbations avoided.
RESULTS: In the case study, the prevention of moderate and severe exacerbations (benefits) and the risk of hearing loss and gastrointestinal symptoms (harms) emerged as important attributes. 477 respondents completed the DCE survey. Relative to each percent risk of severe exacerbation, preference weights for each percent risk of moderate exacerbation, hearing loss, and gastrointestinal symptoms were 0.395 (95%CI 0.338-0.456), 1.180 (95%CI 1.071-1.201) and 0.253 (95%CI 0.207-0.299), respectively. The optimal threshold that maximized net benefit was to treat patients with a 12-month risk of moderate or severe exacerbations ≥12%.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed methodology can be applied to many contexts where the objective is to devise positivity thresholds that need to incorporate stakeholder preferences. Applying this framework to COPD pharmacotherapy resulted in a stakeholder-informed treatment threshold that was substantially lower than the implicit thresholds in contemporary guidelines.

UNASSIGNED: As the therapeutic landscape for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) continues to expand, a need exists to understand how patients perceive and value different attributes associated with their disease as well as with current and emerging treatments. These insights can inform the development and regulation of effective interventions for IBD, benefiting various stakeholders including healthcare professionals, drug developers, regulators, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, and ultimately patients suffering from IBD. In response to this, the present patient preference study was developed with the aim to (1) determine the relative preference weights for IBD treatment and disease related attributes, and (2) explain how preferences may differ across patients with different characteristics (preference heterogeneity).
UNASSIGNED: The patient preference study (PPS) was developed through an 8-step process, with each step being informed by an advisory board. This process included: (1) stated preference method selection, (2) attribute and level development (including a scoping literature review, focus group discussions, and advisory board meetings), (3) choice task construction, (4) sample size estimation, (5) survey implementation, (6) piloting, (7) translation, and (8) pre-testing. The resulting discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey comprises 14 attributes with between two and five varying levels. Participants will answer 15 DCE questions with a partial profile design, where each of the choice questions encompasses two hypothetical treatment profiles showing four attributes. Additionally, questions about patients\' socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as contextual factors are implemented. The survey is available in 15 different languages and aims to minimally recruit 700 patients globally.
UNASSIGNED: This protocol gives valuable insights toward preference researchers and decision-makers on how PPS design can be transparently reported, demonstrating solutions to remaining gaps in preference research. Results of the PPS will provide evidence regarding the disease and treatment related characteristics that are most important for IBD patients, and how these may differ across patients with different characteristics. These findings will yield valuable insights applicable to preference research, drug development, regulatory approval, and reimbursement processes, enabling decision making across the medicinal product life cycle that is aligned with the true needs of IBD patients.

BACKGROUND: Most clinical trials define successful atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment as no AF episodes longer than 30 seconds. Yet, there has been minimal study of how patients define successful treatment and whether their perspectives align with trial outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Survey patients with AF to identify: 1) what aspect of AF is most important to address (frequency, duration, or severity of AF episodes); 2) what AF burden would be considered acceptable to consider treatment successful; and 3) to establish patient preferences for successful treatment thresholds for a validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) score.
METHODS: We surveyed patients receiving active care for AF at a single tertiary care center modeled after the Toronto AF Severity Scale (AFSS). The survey consisted of current and \"successful treatment\" AF frequency, burden, and symptom domains; and baseline socioeconomic information.
RESULTS: Of 7,000 invitations, 852 individuals completed the survey (12% response) with a mean age of 65 ± 13 years, 36.5% were female, and they had a mean CHA2DS2-VAsc score of 2.9 ± 1.9. Overall, 114 (13%) selected a decrease in AF episode duration as their top treatment priority, 505 (59%) episode frequency, and 230 (27%) episode severity. Overall, 207 (24%) patients would only consider a treatment successful if they never had AF again, whereas 645 (76%) patients considered success to be fewer AF episodes. A total of 341 (40%) patients would only consider a treatment successful if AF episodes lasted less than a few minutes, whereas 509 (60%) patients would accept AF episodes lasting >30 minutes. An AFSS symptom score ≤5 was considered a good outcome by 80% of respondents.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients prioritize decreased AF frequency over improvements in severity or duration, and an AFSS ≤5 would be a reasonable outcome of AF treatment. Most patients would consider treatment successful if they had more than 1 AF episode lasting longer than 30 seconds. Future clinical trial design should consider patients\' perspectives when designing outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There are no shared decision-making frameworks for selecting blood pressure (BP) targets for individuals with hypertension. This study addressed whether results from the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) could be tailored to individuals using predicted risks and simulated preferences.
RESULTS: Among 8202 SPRINT participants, Cox models were developed and internally validated to predict each individual\'s absolute difference in risk from intensive versus standard BP lowering for cardiovascular events, cognitive impairment, death, and serious adverse events (AEs). Individual treatment effects were combined using simulated preference weights into a net benefit, which represents a weighted sum of risk differences across outcomes. Net benefits were compared among those above versus below the median AE risk. In simulations for which cardiovascular, cognitive, and death events had much greater weight than the AEs of BP lowering, the median net benefit was 3.3 percentage points (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-5.7), and 100% of participants had a net benefit favoring intensive BP lowering. When simulating benefits and harms to have similar weights, the median net benefit was 0.8 percentage points (IQR, 0.2-2.2), and 87% had a positive net benefit. Compared with participants at lower risk of AEs from BP lowering, those at higher risk had a greater net benefit from intensive BP lowering despite experiencing more AEs (P<0.001 in both simulations).
CONCLUSIONS: Most SPRINT participants had a predicted net benefit that favored intensive BP lowering, but the degree of net benefit varied considerably. Tailoring BP targets using each patient\'s risks and preferences may provide more refined BP target recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity is a public health concern that has profound impact on physical and mental health, and on social well-being. Pregnancy is a period in which food insecurity is likely to be particularly deleterious, due to the serious impact on both mother and child. Food insecurity is not routinely screened in antenatal healthcare settings, and the preferences of pregnant women regarding food insecurity screening and support are poorly understood. This study aimed to determine the views and preferences of food-insecure pregnant women regarding food insecurity screening and support within antenatal healthcare.
METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study used face-to-face semi-structured interviews, conducted in February and March 2023, to gain the views of purposively sampled food-insecure, pregnant women in Melbourne, Australia. Food insecurity was evidenced by an affirmative response to at least one of three assessment items in a screening questionnaire. Qualitative content analysis was conducted to summarise the views and preferences of women.
RESULTS: Nineteen food-insecure pregnant women were interviewed. Three themes were identified: (1) acceptability of being screened for food insecurity, (2) concerns about the consequences of disclosure and (3) preferences regarding food insecurity screening and supportive strategies that could be offered within an antenatal healthcare setting.
CONCLUSIONS: Women were accepting of food insecurity screening being conducted within routine healthcare. Women identified potential benefits of routine screening, such as feeling supported by their clinician to have a healthy pregnancy and less pressure to voluntarily ask for food assistance. Women gave suggestions for the implementation of food insecurity screening to optimise their healthcare experience, maintain their dignity and feel able to disclose within a safe and caring environment. These results indicate that food insecurity screening in the antenatal setting is likely to have support from pregnant women and is urgently needed in the interest of promoting optimal nutrition for women and children.
UNASSIGNED: Pregnant women with lived experience of food insecurity were purposively sampled to obtain their insights regarding screening and support within a pregnancy healthcare setting. Member-checking occurred following data collection, whereby all participants were offered the opportunity to review their interview transcript to ensure trustworthiness of the data.

Introduction This study aims to investigate the complex decision-making process of patients in India when choosing surgeons for joint replacement surgery, with a focus on both clinical and non-clinical factors influencing their preferences. Methods This was a cross-sectional observational study conducted at the KIMS-Sunshine Hospitals, Hyderabad, a high-volume tertiary care institute in India, in which patients with end-stage osteoarthritis requiring primary total knee arthroplasty were evaluated using a self-administered questionnaire, which assessed both patient-related and surgeon-related factors in choosing their joint replacement surgeon. Results A total of 210 participants were surveyed among whom the majority were females with an average age of 60.2 years with the majority belonging to the upper-middle-class socioeconomic status (48.6%, N=102). Fifty-nine percent preferred surgeons with over 20 years of experience, and 63.8% were willing to travel out-of-state for recognized expertise. Family recommendations (33.8%) and surgeon reputation (24.3%) were primary factors in surgeon selection. A vast majority (73.3%) preferred surgeons who were skilled in robotic surgery and had foreign training (32.9%). However, the majority (67.6%) did not express any gender preference. The survey highlighted a broad range of informational sources affecting decisions, including financial consideration (63.8%), personal referrals, and online platforms (17.1%). Preferences were also shaped by hospital reputation and insurance options (10.5%), illustrating a nuanced interplay of quality, cost, and personal connections in the selection process. Conclusion The findings of this survey illuminate the intricate and diverse preferences exhibited by patients when selecting a surgeon for joint replacement surgery. A significant rise in patient expectations is evident, underscoring a demand for more personalized, contemporary, and high-quality healthcare services. Importantly, geographical proximity appears to be a diminishing concern in their decision-making process. This trend presents an opportunity for centers of excellence to extend their influence and attract patients on both a regional and national level.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic-induced weight gain (AIWG) is a substantial contributor to high obesity rates in psychiatry. Limited management guidance exists to inform clinical practice, and individuals with experience of managing AIWG have had no or minimal input into its development. A lack of empirical research outlining patient values and preferences for management also exists. Recommendations addressing weight management in psychiatry may be distinctly susceptible to ideology and sociocultural values regarding intervention appropriateness and expectations of self-management, reinforcing the need for co-produced management guidance. This study is the first to ask: how do individuals conceptualise preferred AIWG management and how can this be realised in practice?
OBJECTIVE: 1. Explore the management experiences of individuals with unwanted AIWG. 2. Elicit their values and preferences regarding preferred management.
METHODS: Qualitative descriptive methodology informed study design. A total of 17 participants took part in semi-structured interviews. Data analysis was undertaken using reflexive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Participants reported that clinicians largely overestimated AIWG manageability using dietary and lifestyle changes. They also reported difficulties accessing alternative management interventions, including a change in antipsychotic and/or pharmacological adjuncts. Participants reported current management guidance is oversimplified, lacks the specificity and scope required, and endorses a \'one-size-fits-all\' management approach to an extensively heterogenous side-effect. Participants expressed a preference for collaborative AIWG management and guidance that prioritises early intervention using the range of evidence-based management interventions, tailored according to AIWG risk, participant ability and participant preference.
CONCLUSIONS: Integration of this research into guideline development will help ensure recommendations are relevant and applicable, and that individual preferences are represented.