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.

UNASSIGNED: This study explored the layperson\'s perception of comfort, satisfaction, and willingness to use various accessories in clear aligner therapy.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 267 people analyzed standardized intraoral photographs of a female model in orthodontic treatment using: 1) only clear aligner (CA), the control group; 2) clear aligner+attachments (AT); 3) clear aligners+Cl II elastics (EL); 4) clear aligner+hybrid treatment with esthetic braces (HEB); 5) Clear aligner+hybrid treatment with metallic braces (HMB); 6) clear aligner+mini-implants (MI); 7) clear aligner+mini-implants and elastics for intrusion (MIE). In addition, a social media questionnaire was distributed to assess the willingness to undergo orthodontic treatment with various accessories.
UNASSIGNED: There was a significant difference between CA and all the other groups (P<0.001), with CA being considered more comfortable and providing greater satisfaction compared to other accessories. Moreover, AT showed a significant difference in reducing treatment time compared to other groups.
UNASSIGNED: The CA was the most comfortable, exhibiting a higher satisfaction rate and a greater willingness to use it. The AT therapy was perceived as more comfortable and was associated with higher satisfaction and a greater likelihood of use, especially if it resulted in reduced treatment time. On the other hand, the participants reported that the HMB, MI, and MIE accessories were less comfortable.

UNASSIGNED: We investigate the complexities and interplay between the concepts of prognostic uncertainty and patient preferences as they relate to the delivery of goal-concordant care to patients with severe acute brain injuries (SABI) in the Neurological Intensive Care Unit (Neuro-ICU).
UNASSIGNED: Patients with SABI in the Neuro-ICU have unique palliative care needs due to sudden, often unexpected changes in personhood and quality of life. A substantial amount of uncertainty is inherent and poses a challenge to both the patient\'s prognosis and treatment preferences. The delivery of goal-concordant care can be difficult to achieve.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials support injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) for whom other pharmacological management approaches are not well-suited. However, despite substantial research indicating that person-centered care improves engagement, retention and health outcomes for individuals with OUD, structural requirements (e.g. drug policies) often dictate how iOAT must be delivered, regardless of client preferences. This study aimed to quantify clients\' iOAT delivery preferences to improve client engagement and retention.
METHODS: Cross-sectional preference elicitation survey.
METHODS: Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
METHODS: 124 current and former iOAT clients.
METHODS: Participants completed a demographic questionnaire package and an interviewer-led preference elicitation survey (case 2 best-worst scaling task). Latent class analysis was used to identify distinct preference groups and explore demographic differences between preference groups.
RESULTS: Most participants (n = 100; 81%) were current iOAT clients. Latent class analysis identified two distinct groups of client preferences: (1) autonomous decision-makers (n = 73; 59%) and (2) shared decision-makers (n = 51; 41%). These groups had different preferences for how medication type and dosage were selected. Both groups prioritized access to take-home medication (i.e. carries), the ability to set their own schedule, receiving iOAT in a space they like and having other services available at iOAT clinics. Compared with shared decision-makers, fewer autonomous decision-makers identified as a cis-male/man and reported flexible preferences.
CONCLUSIONS: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) clients surveyed in Vancouver, Canada, appear to prefer greater autonomy than they currently have in choosing OAT medication type, dosage and treatment schedule.

BACKGROUND: Effective techniques for eliciting patients\' preferences regarding their own care, when treatment options offer marginal gains and different risks, is an important clinical need. We sought to evaluate the association between patients\' considerations of the time burdens of care (\"time toxicity\") with decisions about hypothetical treatment options.
METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, mixed-methods study that evaluated patients\' attitudes and preferences toward palliative-intent cancer treatments that delayed imaging progression-free survival (PFS) but did not improve overall survival (OS). We classified participants based on if they spontaneously volunteered one or more consideration of time burdens during qualitative interviews after treatment trade-off exercises. We compared the percentage of participants who opted for treatments with no PFS gain, some PFS gain, or who declined treatment regardless of PFS gain (in the absence of OS benefit). We conducted narrative analysis of themes related to time burdens.
RESULTS: The study cohort included 100 participants with advanced cancer (55% women, 63% age > 60 years, 38% with gastrointestinal cancer, and 80% currently receiving cancer-directed treatment. Forty-six percent (46/100) spontaneously described time burdens as a factor they considered in making treatment decisions. Participants who mentioned time (vs not) had higher thresholds for PFS gains required for choosing additional treatments (P value .004). Participants who mentioned time were more likely to decline treatments with no OS benefit irrespective of the magnitude of PFS benefit (65%, vs 31%). On qualitative analysis, we found that time burdens are influenced by several treatment-related factors and have broad-ranging impact, and illustrate how patients\' experiences with time burdens and their preferences regarding time influence their decisions.
CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of participating patients spontaneously raised the issue of time burdens of cancer care when making hypothetical treatment decisions. These patients had notable differences in treatment preferences compared to those who did not mention considerations of time. Decision science researchers and clinicians should consider time burdens as an important attribute in research and in clinic.

Background: Generic substitution policies have been widely implemented worldwide to enhance the accessibility of medications. Nevertheless, certain patients have voiced discontent with these policies. This study aimed to evaluate the patient preferences for generic substitution policies and explore the potential for optimization to enhance patient acceptance. Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to estimate the relative importance (RI) of five attributes, including generic consistency evaluation (GCE), reimbursement rate, medication use control, information disclosure, and post-marketing surveillance. Respondents were recruited among inpatients and outpatients in three cities and surveys were conducted face-to-face. Preference coefficients, RI of attributes, and the uptake rate of various policies were computed using a mixed logit model. The interaction effects were also included to examine preference heterogeneity. Results: A total of 302 patients completed the survey. All five attributes significantly impacted policy acceptance. GCE held the highest RI value at 56.64%, followed by reimbursement rate (RI = 12.62%), information disclosure (RI = 12.41%), post-marketing surveillance (RI = 9.54%), and medication use control (RI = 8.80%). Patient preferences varied depending on their gender and income. The patient uptake rate of China\'s current policy was only 68.56%. If all generics were to pass GCE without altering the other attributes, the uptake rate of policies would rise to 82.63%. Similarly, implementing information disclosure without changing other attributes would result in a 78.67% uptake rate, which is comparable to the effect of a 10% increase in reimbursement rate for generics (78.81%). Combining these policies could mitigate the adverse effects of mandatory substitution on patient. Conclusion: Chinese patient preferences for generic substitution policies were mainly influenced by GCE. China\'s current generic substitution policy has room for further optimization to enhance patient acceptance.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with high risk for lung cancer may benefit from lung cancer screening, but there are associated risks as well as benefits. Shared decision-making (SDM) tools with personalized information may provide key support for patients. Understanding patient perspectives on educational tools to facilitate SDM for lung cancer screening may support tool development.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore patient perspectives related to a SDM tool for lung cancer screening using a qualitative approach.
METHODS: We elicited patient perspectives by showing a provider-facing SDM tool. Focus group interviews that ranged in duration from 1.5 to 2 h were conducted with 23 individuals with high risk for lung cancer. Data were interpreted inductively using thematic analysis to identify patients\' thoughts on and desires for a patient-facing SDM tool.
RESULTS: The findings highlight that patients would like to have educational information related to lung cancer screening. We identified several key themes to be considered in the future development of patient-facing tools: barriers to acceptance, preference against screening and seeking empowerment. One further theme illustrated effects of patient-provider relationship as a limitation to meeting lung cancer screening information needs. Participants also noted several suggestions for the design of technology decision aids.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that patients desire additional information on lung cancer screening in advance of clinical visits. However, there are several issues that must be considered in the design and development of technology to meet the information needs of patients for lung cancer screening decisions.
UNASSIGNED: Patients, service users, caregivers or members of the public were not involved in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the data. However, clinical experts in health communication provided detailed feedback on the study protocol, including the focus group approach. The study findings contribute to a better understanding of patient expectations for lung cancer screening decisions and may inform future development of tools for SDM.