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

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorThomas, Megan
dc.contributor.authorMarshall, Deborah A
dc.contributor.authorChoudhary, Daksh
dc.contributor.authorBartlett, Susan J
dc.contributor.authorSanchez, Adalberto Loyola
dc.contributor.authorHazlewood, Glen S
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-04T00:03:24Z
dc.date.available2022-01-04T00:03:24Z
dc.date.issued2021-12-20
dc.description.abstractBackground and Objective: Patients can express preferences for different treatment options in a healthcare context, which can be measured with quantitative preference elicitation methods. Our objective was to conduct a scoping review to determine how preference elicitation methods have been used to design 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 heath trade-offs in the context of clinical trial design. Studies were identified by screening existing systematic and scoping reviews, and a primary literature search in MEDLINE from 2010-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 5 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 which could impact the evidence generated. Future work should be done to consider measurement challenges and explore stakeholder perceptions.en_US
dc.description.grantingagencyCanadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)en_US
dc.identifier.citationThomas, M., Marshall, D. A., Choudhary, D., Bartlett, S. J., Sanchez, A. L., & Hazlewood, G. S. (2021). The Application of Preference Elicitation Methods in Clinical Trial Design to Quantify Trade-Offs: A Scoping Review. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 1-12.en_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00560-wen_US
dc.identifier.grantnumberFRN 156267en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1880/114247
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/43749
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherAdis, Springer, Bloomberg School of Public Healthen_US
dc.publisher.departmentMedicineen_US
dc.publisher.facultyCumming School of Medicineen_US
dc.publisher.hasversionacceptedVersionen_US
dc.publisher.institutionUniversity of Calgaryen_US
dc.publisher.policyhttps://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/publication-policies/self-archiving-policyen_US
dc.subjectPatient preferenceen_US
dc.subjectClinical trialen_US
dc.subjectReviewen_US
dc.titleThe Application of Preference Elicitation Methods in Clinical Trial Design to Quantify Trade-Offs: A Scoping Reviewen_US
dc.typejournal articleen_US
ucalgary.item.requestcopytrueen_US
ucalgary.scholar.levelFacultyen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Scoping review preference elicitation clinical trials_manuscript asnd supp_accepted.pdf
Size:
1.13 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Article with supplementary material
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.92 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Cumming School of Medicine Research & Publications