Objectives This study aimed to explore what intervention specificities or attributes newly diagnosed individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) find important and to explore possible reasons behind their evaluations.Design A stepwise approach began with a systematic literature review to identify significant attributes. Patients with MS then assessed these attributes through an online survey, which included a ranking exercise and open-ended questions. Finally, the results were evaluated by the clinical team to select the most relevant factors for personalised care.Setting and participants From June 2023 to December 2023, all consecutive patients referred to the MS Center of Careggi University Hospital were screened for inclusion. Following recruitment, cognitive and physical assessments were administered at the Don Gnocchi Centre. All participants were interviewed by an experienced neuropsychologist.Procedures Participants were enrolled in the RELIABLE clinical trial, which included a ranking exercise and open-ended question. In the ranking exercise, patients prioritised levels of treatment attributes: treatment effects, methods of intervention, type of monitoring, monitoring, mode and mental support. The open-ended questions addressed the reasons behind the level rankings.Results Participants’ rankings revealed the most important levels of each attribute. The highest-ranked method of intervention was disease-modifying treatment, which received 164 points. For mental support, individual psychotherapy was deemed most important with 149 points. Preservation of cognitive function, a key treatment effect, received 144 points. Clinical check-ups were the top type of monitoring with 129 points. Lastly, the hybrid mode of monitoring (half remote/half in-person) was ranked with 77 points. Open-ended responses provided insights into the reasons behind these preferences, emphasising the importance of maintaining mobility, cognitive function and emotional well-being. The clinical team evaluated these findings, confirming that the selected attributes were both clinically relevant and aligned with patient priorities. This evaluation process ensured that the treatment specificities chosen for individualised care were comprehensive and reflective of patient needs.Conclusions By identifying and prioritising key treatment attributes, this research highlights the multifaceted nature of MS management and emphasises the importance of aligning treatment options with patient preferences. Addressing these factors through further quantitative preference assessments is essential for preventative MS care, improving patient outcomes and promoting a more patient-centred approach to treatment.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) with forced migrants can have positive impacts on health research, but empirical knowledge on the ethics of involving forced migrants is scarce. Unsolved ethical issues risk hindering meaningful involvement and jeopardize the research process, as well as harming the public contributors and causing moral distress. In this article, we aimed to identify ethical issues in PPI with forced migrants and present case examples, based on qualitative data and using thematic analysis, as well as analyse the issues using the ethical principles by Beauchamp and Childress as well as PPI-centred values. The ethical issues identified were "Treating forced migrant public contributors as a vulnerable group can inhibit autonomy"; "Non-inclusive communication strategies can contribute to injustice"; "Regulations around payment risk excluding the most vulnerable from involvement"; "Public contributors risk being excluded from partaking in decision-making," and "If trust is not established, public contributors do not feel safe sharing honest input." Further, we discussed the ethical issues using relational ethics, with a focus on how to conduct PPI with forced migrants in an ethical way.

Whether or not to allow socialisation between parents and children in out-of-home care presents a difficult ethical challenge for those social work professionals who need to make an assessment about what to do. In this as well as in other contexts, it is widely assumed that the principle of the best interest of the child (BIC) is both the legal and moral standard for decision-making for children. Yet, from a moral philosophical perspective it is not entirely clear how this principle should be understood, and in the applied ethics literature it has been suggested that BIC should be rejected. In this paper, we defend BIC as the moral standard for ethical decision-making concerning children. We offer an interpretation of BIC that is both plausible from a moral philosophical point of view and that may offer practical guidance for those assessing whether it is morally defensible to restrict social contact between parents and children placed in out-of-home care. Based on our interpretation of BIC, we develop a tentative step-by-step procedure that may help guide social workers and relevant decision-makers when assessing moral reasons for whether to allow or restrict the right to socialisation between parents and children in out-of-home-care.

Background Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory disorder affecting the brain and spinal cord, characterized by immune-mediated myelin damage. Early intervention and detection programs have emerged as promising strategies to improve patient outcomes by identifying and treating MS in its earliest stages. Objective This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of the preferences, attitudes, and opinions of both patients and healthcare professionals regarding early intervention or early detection programs for MS. Methods A comprehensive search strategy was employed in March 2023 across multiple databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, PsyInfo, PubMed), from 1990 to 2023. A total of 38 articles were selected for analysis based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results The majority of articles were published in recent years and represented different methods from case reports to randomized controlled trials, with fewer systematic literature reviews. Data collection approaches included patients, healthcare workers, or mixed samples with varying age ranges and gender ratios, frequently preferring women. These samples represented different preference study methods. The included studies were primarily conducted in the USA and the UK. Thematic analysis revealed several key themes : 1) differences emerged between healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives 2) interventions for MS outside Disease-Modifying Therapies (DMTs) 3) severe side effects 4) communication, information, and knowledge 5) psychological and emotional aspects. Conclusions Understanding these diverse factors and subgroups within the MS population can inform more effective, personalized approaches to MS prevention and treatment.

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making.Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022.Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions.Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.

Background: This study aims to explore patients' with acute myeloid leukemia perceptions about precision medicine and their preferences for involvement in this new area of shared decision-making.Methods: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted in Finland, Italy and Germany (n = 16). The study population included patients aged 24-79 years. Interviews were analyzed with thematic content analysis.Results: Patient's perceived lack of knowledge as a barrier for their involvement in decision-making. Treatment decisions were often made rapidly based on the patient's intuition and trust for the physician rather than on information, in situations that decrease the patient's decision capacity. The patients emphasized that they are in a desperate situation that makes them willing to accept treatment with low probabilities of being cured.Conclusions: The study raised important issues regarding patients' understanding of precision medicine and challenges concerning how to involve patients in medical decision-making. Although technical advances were viewed positively, the role of the physician as an expert and person-of-trust cannot be replaced. Practice implications: Regardless of patients' preferences for involvement in decision-making, information plays a crucial role for patients' perceived involvement in their care. The concepts related to precision medicine are complex and will imply challenges to patient education.

PURPOSE:Patient and public involvement (PPI) is becoming more common in research, but has been problematized for lack of diversity. While PPI literature increasingly focuses on assessment of PPI on research, a focus on the contributors is less common. This study tracked the experiences of involvement among four refugee parents involved as public contributors in a child mental health trial, over three years.METHODS:The study used a longitudinal qualitative design with focus group discussions. Data were analysed using thematic analysis combined with a longitudinal analysis approach.RESULTS:The refugee parents' motivations for being involved changed from focusing on individual benefits to societal change. They initially viewed themselves as guests, which transformed into utilizing the group for social support. Time impacted trust-building positively, with continued collaboration strengthening trust. Practical aspects were dominant in the beginning, which shifted over time to allow more focus on research. They identified several learnings they gained from involvement. A discrepancy in how parents and researchers viewed involvement was identified, where parents saw researchers as owners of the research.CONCLUSIONS:To sustain successful PPI collaboration over time, researchers need to prioritize investment in time and resources, in communication, including working with interpreters, and in continued adjustments.

Treatments used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are under investigation for their efficacy to prevent RA in at risk groups. It is therefore important to understand treatment preferences of those at risk. We systematically reviewed quantitative preference studies of drugs to treat, or prevent RA, to inform the design of further studies and trials of RA prevention. Stated preference studies for RA treatment or prevention were identified through a search of five databases. Study characteristics and results were extracted, and the relative importance of different types of treatment attributes was compared across populations. Twenty three studies were included 20 of RA treatments (18 of patients; 2 of the general public) and 3 prevention studies with first-degree relatives (FDRs). Benefits, risks, administration method and cost (when included) were important determinants of treatment choice. A benefit was more important than a risk attribute in half of the studies of RA treatment that included a benefit attribute and 2/3 studies of RA prevention. There was variability in the relative importance of attributes across the few prevention studies. In studies with non-patient participants, attributes describing confidence in treatment effectiveness/safety were more important determinants of choice than in studies with patients. Most preference studies relating to RA are of treatments for established RA. Few studies examine preferences for treatments to prevent RA. Given intense research focus on RA prevention, additional preference studies in this context are needed. Variation in treatment preferences across different populations is not well understood and direct comparisons are needed.

Patient preferences are gaining recognition among key stakeholders involved in benefit-risk decision-making along the medical product lifecycle. However, one of the main challenges of integrating patient preferences in benefit-risk decision-making is understanding differences in patient preference, which may be attributable to clinical characteristics (eg age, medical history) or psychosocial factors. Measuring the latter may provide valuable information to decision-makers but there is limited guidance regarding which psychological dimensions may influence patient preferences and which psychological instruments should be considered for inclusion in patient preference studies. This paper aims to provide such guidance by advancing evidence and consensus-based recommendations and considerations. Findings of a recent systematic review on psychological constructs having an impact on patients' preferences and health-related decisions were expanded with input from an expert group (n = 11). These data were then used as the basis for final recommendations developed through two rounds of formal evaluation via an online Delphi consensus process involving international experts in the field of psychology, medical decision-making, and risk communication (n = 27). Three classes of recommendations emerged. Eleven psychological constructs reached consensus to be recommended for inclusion with the strongest consensus existing for health literacy, numeracy, illness perception and treatment-related beliefs. We also proposed a set of descriptive and checklist criteria to appraise available psychological measures to assist researchers and other stakeholders in including psychological assessment when planning patient preference studies. These recommendations can guide researchers and other stakeholders when designing and interpreting patient preference studies with a potential high impact in clinical practice and medical product benefit-risk decision-making processes.

Medicines, including those intended for the treatment of cancer, are tightly regulated. Such regulation, historically linked to disasters due to unsafe medicines, evolved to cover all aspects of research around the quality, safety and efficacy of candidate medicines. This chapter intends to give an introduction on what regulators do and where the ethical foundations for regulating medicines might be searched. Some specific dilemmas will be explored, such as (i) whether at all, and if so subject to which conditions, research on animals is justified; (ii) what to do when potentially useful data on a medicine were collected unethically; (iii) which additional ethical challenges are posed by the fact that regulators have to make decisions on a medicine under uncertainty; and (iv) how to account for patients’ preferences (and their heterogeneity) in regulatory decision-making. An overview of emerging topics such as use of healthcare data and open science is also proposed. While not intending to cover all arguments in the complex conversation around the regulation of medicines for cancer (let alone, around the regulation of medicines in general), this chapter aims to give a basis for further reading.

Introduction Amidst growing consensus that stakeholder decision-making during drug development should be informed by an understanding of patient preferences, the Innovative Medicines Initiative project ‘Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle’ (PREFER) is developing evidence-based recommendations about how and when patient preferences should be integrated into the drug life cycle. This protocol describes a PREFER clinical case study which compares two preference elicitation methodologies across several populations and provides information about benefit–risk trade-offs by those at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for preventive interventions. Methods and analysis This mixed methods study will be conducted in three countries (UK, Germany, Romania) to assess preferences of (1) first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with RA and (2) members of the public. Focus groups using nominal group techniques (UK) and ranking surveys (Germany and Romania) will identify and rank key treatment attributes. Focus group transcripts will be analysed thematically using the framework method and average rank orders calculated. These results will inform the treatment attributes to be assessed in a survey including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a probabilistic threshold technique (PTT). The survey will also include measures of sociodemographic variables, health literacy, numeracy, illness perceptions and beliefs about medicines. The survey will be administered to (1) 400 FDRs of patients with RA (UK); (2) 100 FDRs of patients with RA (Germany); and (3) 1000 members of the public in each of UK, Germany and Romania. Logit-based approaches will be used to analyse the DCE and imputation and interval regression for the PTT. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/0407) and the Ethics Committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (92_17 B). The protocol has been approved by the PREFER expert review board. The results will be disseminated widely and will inform the PREFER recommendations.

OBJECTIVES:There is an increased interest in patient preferences informing the development and authorisation of medical products. A requirement for robust and meaningful results of such studies is that patients adequately understand the risks and benefits associated with treatments for which their preferences are elicited. This study aims to determine the influence of an educational tool, compared with traditional written information on patient preferences elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS:Treatment preferences of Swedish patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were assessed using a DCE. Patients were recruited via clinics, a research panel, and the Swedish Rheumatism Association. Respondents received training materials either as plain written text or as an online educational tool. The educational tool was designed to enhance understanding of the written text by using graphics, pictograms, icon arrays, spoken text, and click-on functions. Data were analysed using random parameter logit models. RESULTS:675 patients with RA were included in the analysis. The patients received either a written information (n = 358) or information via an educational tool (n = 317). Respondents receiving the educational tool placed relatively more importance on all included side effects in their decision making, compared to respondents receiving the written text, who placed greater importance on treatment effectiveness and administration methods. CONCLUSION:Compared to the respondents receiving the written text, the decisions of respondents receiving the educational tool were more influenced by medication side effects. Further research is needed to provide guidance on how and when to use educational tools to inform and elicit patients' preferences. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:The ways in which attributes are presented to patients significantly impacts preferences measured in a DCE.

Background Preconception Expanded Carrier Screening (ECS) is a genetic test offered to a general population or to couples who have no known risk of recessive and X-linked genetic diseases and are interested in becoming parents. A test may screen for carrier status of several autosomal recessive diseases at one go. Such a program has been piloted in the Netherlands and may become a reality in more European countries in the future. The ethical rationale for such tests is that they enhance reproductive autonomy. The dominant conception of autonomy is individual-based. However, at the clinic, people deciding on preconception ECS will be counselled together and are expected to make a joint decision, as a couple. The aim of the present study was to develop an understanding of autonomous decisions made by couples in the context of reproductive technologies in general and of preconception ECS in particular. Further, to shed light on what occurs in reproductive clinics and suggest concrete implications for healthcare professionals. Main text Based on the shift in emphasis from individual autonomy to relational autonomy, a notion of couple autonomy was suggested and some features of this concept were outlined. First, that both partners are individually autonomous and that the decision is reached through a communicative process. In this process each partner should feel free to express his or her concerns and preferences, so no one partner dominates the discussion. Further, there should be adequate time for the couple to negotiate possible differences and conclude that the decision is right for them. The final decision should be reached through consensus of both partners without coercion, manipulation or miscommunication. Through concrete examples, the suggested notion of couple autonomy was applied to diverse clinical situations. Conclusions A notion of couple autonomy can be fruitful for healthcare professionals by structuring their attention to and support of a couple who is required to make an autonomous joint decision concerning preconception ECS. A normative implication for healthcare staff is to allow the necessary time for decision-making and to promote a dialogue that can increase the power of the weaker part in a relationship.

On March, 24, 2020, 818 cases of COVID-19 had been reported in New South Wales, Australia, and new cases were increasing at an exponential rate. In anticipation of resource constraints arising in clinical settings as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a working party of ten ethicists (seven clinicians and three full-time academics) was convened at the University of Sydney to draft an ethics framework to support resource allocation decisions. The framework guides decision-makers using a question-and-answer format, in language that avoids philosophical and medical technicality. The working party met five times over the following week and then submitted a draft Framework for consideration by two groups of intensivists and one group of academic ethicists. It was also presented to a panel on a national current affairs programme. The Framework was then revised on the basis of feedback from these sources and made publicly available online on April 3, ten days after the initial meeting. The framework is published here in full to stimulate ongoing discussion about rapid development of user-friendly clinical ethics resources in ongoing and future pandemics.

BACKGROUND:Preference assessments of patients with rheumatoid arthritis can support clinical therapeutic decisions for including biologic and targeted synthetic medicines to use. This study assesses patient preferences for attributes of second-line therapies and heterogeneity within these preferences to estimate the relative importance of treatment characteristics and to calculate the minimum benefit levels patients require to accept higher levels of side effects.METHODS:Between November 2018 to August 2019, patients with rheumatoid arthritis were recruited to a survey containing demographic and disease-related questions as well as a discrete choice experiment to measure their preferences for second-line therapies using biologics or Janus kinases inhibitors. Treatment characteristics included were route of administration, frequency of use, probability of mild short-term side effects, probability of side effects changing appearance, probability of psychological side effects, probability of severe side effects and effectiveness of treatment.RESULTS:A total of 358 patients were included in the analysis. A latent class analysis revealed three preference patterns: (1) treatment effectiveness as the single most important attribute, (2) route of administration as the most important attribute, closely followed by frequency of use and psychological side effects and (3) severe side effects as the most important attribute followed by psychological side effects. In addition, disease duration and mild side effects influenced the patients' choices.CONCLUSION:Respondents found either effectiveness, route of administration or severe side effects as the most important attribute. Patients noting effectiveness as most important were more willing than other patients to accept higher risks of side effects.

BackgroundResearch has been mainly focused on how to elicit patient preferences, with less attention on why patients form certain preferences.ObjectivesTo assess which psychological instruments are currently used and which psychological constructs are known to have an impact on patients' preferences and health-related decisions including the formation of preferences and preference heterogeneity.MethodsA systematic database search was undertaken to identify relevant studies. From the selected studies, the following information was extracted: study objectives, study population, design, psychological dimensions investigated, and instruments used to measure psychological variables.ResultsThirty-three studies were identified that described the association between a psychological construct, measured using a validated instrument, and patients' preferences or health-related decisions. We identified 33 psychological instruments and 18 constructs, and categorized the instruments into 5 groups, namely, motivational factors, cognitive factors, individual differences, emotion and mood, and health beliefs.ConclusionsThis review provides an overview of the psychological factors and related instruments in the context of patients' preferences and decisions in healthcare settings. Our results indicate that measures of health literacy, numeracy, and locus of control have an impact on health-related preferences and decisions. Within the category of constructs that could explain preference and decision heterogeneity, health locus of control is a strong predictor of decisions in several healthcare contexts and is useful to consider when designing a patient preference study. Future research should continue to explore the association of psychological constructs with preference formation and heterogeneity to build on these initial recommendations.

PURPOSE:The purpose of this study was to investigate to what extent the outcomes of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) differ based on respondents' psychological distance to the decision at hand.METHODS:A DCE questionnaire regarding individuals' preferences for genetic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) within the Dutch national CRC screening program was created. The DCE contained nine D-efficient designed choice tasks and was distributed among two populations that differ in their psychological distance to the decision at hand: 1) a representative sample of the Dutch general population aged 55-65 years, and 2) a sample of Dutch individuals who attended an information appointment regarding colonoscopies following the detection of blood in their stool sample in the CRC screening program. The DCE consisted of four attributes related to the decision whether to participate in genetic screening for CRC: 1) risk of being genetically predisposed, 2) risk of developing CRC, 3) frequency of follow-up colonoscopies, and 4) survival. Direct attribute ranking, dominant decision-making behavior, and relative importance scores (based on panel MIXL) were compared between the two populations. Attribute level estimates were compared with the Swait and Louviere test.RESULTS:The proportion of respondents who both ranked survival as the most important attribute, and showed dominant decision-making behavior for this attribute, was significantly higher in the screened population compared to the general population. The relative importance scores of the attributes significantly differed between populations. Finally, the Swait and Louviere test also revealed significant differences in attribute level estimates in both the populations.CONCLUSION:The study outcomes differed between populations depending on their psychological distance to the decision. This study shows the importance of adequate sample selection; therefore, it is advocated to increase attention to study sample selection and reporting in DCE studies.

Giving patients' preferences a voice in the medical product lifecycle: why, when and how? : The public-private PREFER project: Work package 2