The Application of Preference Elicitation Methods in Clinical Trial Design to Quantify Trade-Offs: A Scoping Review

Megan Thomas, Deborah A. Marshall, Daksh Choudhary, Susan J. Bartlett, Adalberto Loyola Sanchez and Glen S. Hazlewood ()
Additional contact information
Megan Thomas: University of Calgary
Deborah A. Marshall: University of Calgary
Daksh Choudhary: University of Calgary
Susan J. Bartlett: McGill University
Adalberto Loyola Sanchez: University of Alberta
Glen S. Hazlewood: University of Calgary

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2022, vol. 15, issue 4, No 4, 423-434

Abstract: Abstract Background and Objective Patients can express preferences for different treatment options in a healthcare context, and these can be measured with quantitative preference elicitation methods. Objective Our objective was to conduct a scoping review to determine how preference elicitation methods have been used in the design of clinical trials. Methods We conducted a scoping review to identify primary research studies, involving any health condition, that used quantitative preference elicitation methods, including direct utility-based approaches, and stated preference studies, to value health trade-offs in the context of clinical trial design. Studies were identified by screening existing systematic and scoping reviews and with a primary literature search in MEDLINE from 2010 to the present. We extracted study characteristics and the application of preference elicitation methods to clinical trial design according to the SPIRIT checklist from primary studies and summarized the findings descriptively. Results We identified 18 eligible studies. The included studies applied patient preferences to five areas of clinical trial design: intervention selection (n = 1), designing N-of-1 trials (n = 1), outcome selection and weighting composite and ordinal outcomes (n = 12), sample size calculations (n = 2), and recruitment (n = 2). Using preference elicitation methods led to different decisions being made, such as using preference-weighted composite outcomes instead of equally weighted composite outcomes. Conclusion Preference elicitation methods are infrequently used to design clinical trials but may lead to changes throughout the trial that could affect the evidence generated. Future work should consider measurement challenges and explore stakeholder perceptions.

Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-021-00560-w

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().