Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research最新文献

{"title":"What Do People Want from an AI-Assisted Screening App for Sexually Transmitted Infection-Related Anogenital Lesions: A Discrete Choice Experiment.","authors":"Nyi Nyi Soe, Phyu Mon Latt, Alicia King, David Lee, Tiffany R Phillips, Christopher K Fairley, Lei Zhang, Jason J Ong","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00720-8","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00720-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>One of the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations to achieve its global targets for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is the increased use of digital technologies. Melbourne Sexual Health Centre (MSHC) has developed an AI-assisted screening application (app) called AiSTi for the detection of common STI-related anogenital skin conditions. This study aims to understand the community's preference for using the AiSTi app.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to understand community preferences regarding the attributes of the AiSTi app for checking anogenital skin lesions. The DCE design included the attributes: data type; AI accuracy; verification of result by clinician; details of result; speed; professional support; and cost. The anonymous DCE survey was distributed to clients attending MSHC and through social media channels in Australia between January and March 2024. Participant preferences on various app attributes were examined using random parameters logit (RPL) and latent class analysis (LCA) models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median age of 411 participants was 32 years (interquartile range 26-40 years), with 64% assigned male at birth. Of the participants, 177 (43.1%) identified as same-sex attracted and 137 (33.3%) as heterosexual. In the RPL model, the most influential attribute was the cost of using the app (24.1%), followed by the clinician's verification of results (20.4%), the AI accuracy (19.5%) and the speed of receiving the result (19.1%). The LCA identified two distinct groups: 'all-rounders' (88%), who considered every attribute as important, and a 'cost-focussed' group (12%), who mainly focussed on the price. On the basis of the currently available app attributes, the predicted uptake was 72%. In the short term, a more feasible scenario of improving AI accuracy to 80-89% with clinician verification at a $5 cost could increase uptake to 90%. A long-term optimistic scenario with AI accuracy over 95%, no clinician verification and no cost could increase it to 95%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Preferences for an AI-assisted screening app targeting STI-related anogenital skin lesions are one that is low-cost, clinician-verified, highly accurate and provides results rapidly. An app with these key qualities would substantially improve user uptake.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"131-143"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11832619/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142562431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Measuring Patient Preferences to Inform Clinical Trial Design: An Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis.","authors":"Gillian R Currie, Jan Storek, Karen V MacDonald, Glen Hazlewood, Caylib Durand, John F P Bridges, Dianne Mosher, Deborah A Marshall","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00724-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00724-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT) may be a curative treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but it has serious risks, including death. It is uncertain whether patients would accept the risks and benefits of BMT and participate in clinical trials. We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to quantify risk tolerance and benefit-risk trade-offs to inform the design of a clinical trial for BMT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a DCE with three attributes (three levels each): chance of stopping disease progression (50-90%), increased chance of death in year after transplant (3-15%), and chance of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) (3-15%). An orthogonal main effects design of nine binary choice tasks were presented for two scenarios: one considering their current situation and a second scenario where the patient has failed seven anti-rheumatic drugs. Participants were recruited from the Rheum4U inflammatory arthritis registry. Choice data were analyzed using a logit model accounting for multiple responses per participant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty patients participated. Most (82%) had severe disease, and the median number of anti-rheumatic drugs previously taken was 6 (range 0-18). As expected, an increased chance of stopping disease progression increases the probability of choosing BMT, while increased chance of both risks decreases the probability. Patients were willing to accept a 3% increase in risk of death or 6% increase in chance of chronic GVHD for a 10% increase in the chance of stopping disease progression. For the most clinically likely BMT risk-benefit profiles, and the likely initial target population of patients who have failed multiple biologics, between 72% and 91% of patients would choose BMT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients with RA are willing to accept substantial risks for a chance to stop disease progression with BMT, suggesting that a pilot trial of BMT for RA could successfully recruit patients. Preference studies have an important role in informing patient-centered clinical trial planning and design.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"161-171"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142815025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Transferability of Preferences; for Better or ….?","authors":"Jorien Veldwijk, Semra Ozdemir, Michael Bui, Juan Marcos Gonzalez, Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Brett Hauber, Tommi Tervonen","doi":"10.1007/s40271-025-00728-8","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-025-00728-8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"97-100"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11832702/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143076446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What Next for the Science of Patient Preference? Interoperability, Standardization, and Transferability.","authors":"Kevin Marsh, Juan Marcos Gonzalez Sepulveda, Conny Berlin, Bennett Levitan, Marco Boeri, Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Norah L Crossnohere, Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno, Barry Liden, Isabelle Stoeckert, Jorien Veldwijk, Stephen Watt, Brett Hauber","doi":"10.1007/s40271-025-00727-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-025-00727-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using patient preference information (PPI) to incorporate patient voices into the drug development lifecycle can help align therapies with the needs and values of patients. However, several barriers have limited the use of PPI, including a lack of clarity on its use by decision-makers, a need for greater decision-maker trust in PPI, and a lack of time, budgets, and access to specialist expertise. The value proposition for PPI could be enhanced by making it FAIR: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. To support the development of a research agenda to deliver FAIR PPI, we reviewed related endeavors in the development of repositories of existing studies, disease models, benefit transfer, and common data standards. We concluded that developing FAIR PPI would require advances in the science of PPI, including the establishment of a consortium, mirroring the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) or Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OPOM), to develop PPI data standards, and research into the sources of variation in patient preferences. This will require the science of PPI to graduate from being a body of empirical observations to developing theories that explain variations in patient preferences, simultaneously driving both efficiency in the generation of PPI and trust in PPI.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"101-108"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143054063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patient Preferences for First-Line Treatment of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: An Application of Multidimensional Thresholding.","authors":"Andrea B Apolo, Christine Michaels-Igbokwe, Nicholas I Simon, David J Benjamin, Mallory Farrar, Zsolt Hepp, Lisa Mucha, Sebastian Heidenreich, Katelyn Cutts, Nicolas Krucien, Natasha Ramachandran, John L Gore","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00709-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00709-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Patient preferences have the potential to influence the development of new treatments for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC), and therefore we explored how patients with la/mUC value different attributes of first-line treatments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online preference survey and multidimensional thresholding (MDT) exercise were developed following a targeted literature review and qualitative interviews with physicians, patients with la/mUC, and their caregivers. Treatment attributes included two benefits (overall response rate [ORR], pain related to bladder cancer [scored 0-100; 100 being the worst pain possible]) and four treatment-related risks (peripheral neuropathy, severe side effects, mild to moderate nausea, mild to moderate skin reactions). A Dirichlet regression was used to estimate average preference weights. Marginal utility and the reduction in ORR that patients would accept in exchange for a 10-point decrease or a 10% decrease in other attributes were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 100 patients were recruited and self-completed the survey and MDT. Mean patient age was 64.9 years (standard deviation, 7.6), 54% were female, and 38% identified as white. All included treatment attributes had a statistically significant impact on preferences. Changes in ORR had the largest impact, followed by cancer-related pain and treatment-related risks. Patients were willing to accept an 8.4% decrease in ORR to reduce their pain level by 10 points or a 7.8% decrease in ORR to reduce the risk of peripheral neuropathy by 10%. For a 10% decrease in severe side effects, mild to moderate nausea, or skin reaction, patients would accept decreases in ORR of 5.5%, 3.7%, or 3.4%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Of the attributes tested, changes in ORR were most important to patients. Patients made tradeoffs between treatment attributes indicating that a lower ORR may be acceptable for an improvement in other attributes such as reduced cancer-related pain or the risk of treatment-related adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"77-87"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11717873/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142094152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluating Comprehensibility of 157 Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in the Nationwide Dutch Outcome-Based Healthcare Program: More Attention for Comprehensibility of PROMs is Needed.","authors":"Attie Tuinenburg, Domino Determann, Elise H Quik, Esmee M van der Willik, Geeske Hofstra, Joannes M Hallegraeff, Ingrid Vriend, Lisanne Warmerdam, Hester E van Bommel, Gudule Boland, Martijn A H Oude Voshaar","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00710-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00710-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are increasingly prevalent in healthcare and used for shared decision-making and healthcare quality evaluation. However, the extent to which patients with varying health literacy levels can complete PROMs is often overlooked. This may lead to biased aggregated data and patients being excluded from studies or other PROM collection initiatives. This cross-sectional study evaluates the comprehensibility of 157 well-known and widely used PROM scales using a comprehensibility checklist.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pairs of two independent raters scored 157 PROM scales designed for adults included in the 35 sets of outcome information developed as part of the Dutch Outcome-Based Healthcare Program. The PROM scales were scored on the eight comprehensibility domains of the Pharos Checklist for Questionnaires in Healthcare (PCQH). Interrater agreement of domain ratings was assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients or Cohen's kappa. Subsequently, final ratings were established through discussion and used to evaluate the domain-specific comprehensibility rating for each PROM scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Comprehensibility of a large number of PROM scales (n = 157), which cover a wide range of diseases and conditions across Dutch medical specialist care, was assessed. While most PROM scales were written at an accessible language level, with minimal use of medical terms, instruction clarity, number of questions, and response options emerged as significant issues, affecting a substantial proportion of PROM scales. Interrater agreement was high for most domains of the PCQH.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights the need for greater attention to the comprehensibility of PROMs to ensure their accessibility to all patients, including those with low health literacy. The PCQH can be a valuable tool in PROM development in addition to qualitative methods and in selection processes enabling comparison of comprehensibility between PROMs. However, the PCQH needs further development and validation for these purposes. Enhancing the comprehensibility of PROMs is essential for their effective incorporation in healthcare evaluation and decision-making processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"65-76"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11717823/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141977216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Framework to Promote Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Institutions Caring for Vulnerable and Underserved Cancer Populations.","authors":"Anne L R Schuster, Norah L Crossnohere, Eric Adjei Boakye, Rebekah Angove, Billie Baldwin, Esteban A Barreto, Ronald C Chen, Theresa W Gillespie, Betty Hamilton, Nadine Jackson McCleary, Maimah Karmo, Tara Kaufmann, William Lee, Vikas Mehta, Larissa Meyer, Kriti Mittal, Leah Owens, Rachel Peterson, Andrea Pusic, Anne Marie Rainey, Angelique Richardson, Lauren Shapiro, Bethany Sibbitt, Cardinale Smith, Mary Vargo, Andrew Vickers, Michael Brundage, Claire Snyder","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00703-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00703-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"89-95"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12160071/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141441094","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Preferences for the Societal Impacts of a Pandemic when it Transitions into an Endemic: A Discrete Choice Experiment.","authors":"Niek Mouter, Tom Geijsen, Aylin Munyasya, Jose Ignacio Hernandez, Daniel Korthals, Marijn Stok, Ellen Uiters, Marijn de Bruin","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00701-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00701-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The stage of the pandemic significantly affects people's preferences for (the societal impacts of) COVID-19 policies. No discrete choice experiments were conducted when the COVID-19 pandemic was in a transition phase.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is the first study to empirically investigate how citizens weigh the key societal impacts of pandemic policies when the COVID-19 pandemic transitions into an endemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed two discrete choice experiments among 2181 Dutch adults that included six attributes: COVID-19 deaths, physical health problems, mental health problems, financial problems, surgery delays and the degree to which individual liberties are restricted. We used latent class choice models to identify heterogeneous preferences for the impacts of COVID-19 measures across different groups of respondents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A large majority of the participants in this study was willing to accept deaths to avoid that citizens experience physical complaints, mental health issues, financial problems and the postponement of surgeries. The willingness to tolerate COVID-19 deaths to avoid these societal impacts differed substantially between participants. When participants were provided with information about the stringency of COVID-19 measures, they assigned relatively less value to preventing the postponement of non-urgent surgeries for 1-3 months across all classes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Having gone through a pandemic, most Dutch citizens clearly prefer pandemic policies that consider citizens' financial situations, physical problems, mental health problems and individual liberties, alongside the effects on excess mortality and pressure on healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"49-63"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11717793/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141560311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Validity and Responsiveness of EQ-5D in Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Ai-Ping Chua, Ling Jie Cheng, Zhi Yi Soh, Le Ann Chen, Nan Luo","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00711-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00711-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to synthesize the evidence on the construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D and compare them with asthma-specific health-related quality-of-life scales, to guide further research and clinical applications in asthma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched key databases from inception to 1 June, 2024 and used the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) method to appraise the evidence. The effect size estimates were aggregated using the inverse variance method to evaluate the relative efficiency of EQ-5D measures against the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and/or its corresponding preference-based index, Asthma Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (AQL-5D).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 493 tests (construct validity: 428; responsiveness: 65) drawn from 37 selected articles (validation: 7; clinical: 30). Overall, 78.4% and 76.9% of the a priori hypotheses for assessing construct validity (convergent validity: 56.4%; known groups: 88.5%) and responsiveness, respectively, were satisfied. The methodological quality was \"very good\" or \"adequate\" in 78.2% of construct validity tests and 92.3% of responsiveness tests. The pooled correlation coefficient between EQ-5D index and AQLQ total scores was 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.43-0.59), and between EQ visual analog scale and AQLQ total scores was 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.34-0.69). The Cohen's d ratios for the index, level sum scores, and visual analog scale compared to AQLQ were 0.56 (n = 27), 1.16 (n = 16), and 0.75 (n = 37). The EQ-5D index's Cohen's d ratio compared to AQL-5D was 0.49 (n = 5). The standardized response mean ratios for the index and visual analog scale compared to AQLQ were 0.26 (n = 11) and 0.63 (n = 9).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The EQ-5D demonstrated overall good validity and responsiveness in the adult asthma population. However, a comparison against disease-specific instruments suggested scope for improvement in its psychometric performance for this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"35-47"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142146831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Discrete Choice Experiments to Elicit Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Susan dosReis, Dafne Espinal Pena, Alexandra Fincannon, Emily F Gorman, Alejandro Amill-Rosario","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00706-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40271-024-00706-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individual preferences for treatment options for major depressive disorder can impact therapeutic decision making, adherence, and ultimately outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) on patient preferences for major depressive disorder treatment assessed the range of DCE applications in major depressive disorder to document patient stakeholder involvement in DCE development and to identify the relative importance of treatment attributes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE via Ovid (1946-present), EMBASE (Elsevier interface), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley interface), and PsycINFO (EBSCO interface) databases on 29 May, 2024. Covidence software facilitated the review, which four members completed independently. The review was conducted in two phases: title and abstract and then a full-text review. We used an established quality reporting tool to evaluate selected articles. The Covidence extraction tool was adapted for this study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 19 articles were included in this review. Most studies elicited preferences for depression treatment (63.2%) and care delivery (10.5%). Two assessed willingness to pay. Individuals prefer a combination of medicine and counseling over each treatment alone. Treatment efficacy, relapse prevention, and symptom relief were among the most important attributes. Individuals were willing to accept larger risks to achieve symptom improvement. Few studies examined preference heterogeneity with latent subgroups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Discrete choice experiments for major depressive disorder treatment preferences enable an assessment of trade-offs for first-line therapeutic options. Patient stakeholders are infrequently involved as collaborators in the DCE development. Few examined preference heterogeneity among subgroups.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"19-33"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141538911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}