OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to explore the design and outcomes of preference-based value clarification methods (Pb-VCMs) used in the context of supporting patients' clinical decision making to understand whether guidance is used in Pb-VCM development and which Pb-VCM is most effective. METHODS:In April of 2023, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting the development and/or evaluation of Pb-VCMs without restrictions on publication date. Two reviewers independently extracted data including context and clinical decisions, study methods, sample, Pb-VCM design and development, type of preference information, and measurement of outcomes, such as feasibility/acceptability and effectiveness. Data were synthesized using descriptive and narrative analyses. RESULTS:Of 3207 abstracts screened, 50 studies were included: 28 descriptive, 9 observational, and 13 experimental. The most common Pb-VCM approaches were adaptive conjoint analysis (n = 16), analytic hierarchy process (n = 9), and simple ranking (n = 6). Most studies (n = 37) did not report using preference- or decision aid-specific guidelines to support development. Personalized preference information was provided to participants in 45 studies. Most studies reported positive findings related to feasibility and participant experience, although complexity was identified as a challenge. The most-frequently assessed outcomes were decisional conflict and value congruence. Evidence on effectiveness was limited and mixed. CONCLUSIONS:Although individual studies report positive findings, variation in design and reporting of existing studies hinders drawing of general conclusions regarding whether Pb-VCMs improve decision-making processes and outcomes. Future research should focus on developing guidelines, for which the data extraction form developed for this study could serve as a starting point.

OBJECTIVE:To elicit preferences for available and emerging systemic treatments among patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with self-reported muscle-invasive bladder cancer participated in an online discrete-choice experiment evaluating preferences for attributes of systemic treatments that could be administered with radical cystectomy or bladder-sparing approaches. Evidence-based attributes included timing and duration of therapy, time until cancer recurrence, overall survival at 5 years, and chance of treatment-related adverse events. Direct-elicitation questions offered choices among fixed profiles of bladder-sparing treatment and radical cystectomy with adjuvant and neoadjuvant systemic treatments. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Satisfaction Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) captured patients' levels of satisfaction with treatment. RESULTS:Two hundred two respondents completed the survey. Most patients preferred to keep their bladder. Improvements in efficacy were most important (overall survival at 5 years, followed by the time until cancer recurrence). The average patient was tolerant of hypothetical adverse events and willing to accept increasing levels of risk for all overall survival improvements offered. Approximately 75% of respondents chose perioperative immunotherapy plus neoadjuvant chemotherapy with radical cystectomy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone with radical cystectomy in a fixed-choice question. On the SDM-Q-9, almost 20% of respondents disagreed with the statement "My doctor asked me which treatment option I prefer." CONCLUSION:Improving overall survival and delaying recurrence were the most important attributes to respondents, and they were willing to accept clinically relevant treatment-related adverse events for improvements in efficacy. Results may inform patient education and engagement in shared treatment decisions.

IntroductionTo quantify patients' preferences for adjuvant renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatments.Patients and MethodsPreferences were elicited using a discrete-choice experiment requiring RCC patients to choose between 2 hypothetical treatments. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit and latent-class models.ResultsPatients (n = 250) preferred treatments that increase disease-free and overall survival (OS), are taken less frequently, require no concomitant medication, have a shorter duration, and have lower side-effect risks. The analyses also highlighted their willingness to make tradeoffs between these benefits and risks. Patients were generally tolerant of increases in the risks of treatment-related severe diarrhea, dizziness, and fatigue and were willing to accept increases in these risks in exchange for improvements in overall or disease-free survival. Latent-class analysis identified 3 classes: class 1 (37.5%) and class 2 (26.9%) preferred not to opt out of treatment and prioritized increased OS and disease-free survival, respectively; class 3 (35.5%) preferred to opt out and prioritized mode, duration, and risks.ConclusionsHeterogeneity suggests patient-physician discussions are important when considering RCC treatments.

IntroductionTo quantify physicians' preferences for adjuvant renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatments.Materials and MethodsA discrete-choice experiment was administered online to board-certified/eligible physicians. Physicians chose between pairs of hypothetical adjuvant therapies for a high-risk patient who had recently undergone a radical nephrectomy. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit and latent-class models.ResultsPhysicians (n = 250; 64% oncologists; 36% urologists) placed most importance on improvements in the chance of 5-year overall survival, followed by increased median disease-free survival and reduced risk of side effects. The analyses also highlighted their willingness to make tradeoffs between these benefits and risks. Physicians were generally tolerant of increases in the risks of treatment-related severe diarrhea, dizziness, and fatigue and were willing to accept increases in these risks in exchange for improvements in overall or disease-free survival. Subgroup analysis revealed heterogeneity between oncologists and urologists, and latent-class analysis revealed significant heterogeneity among the whole physician sample.ConclusionsMost physicians in this study would recommend adjuvant therapy to a typical high-risk postnephrectomy RCC patient.

In health preference research (HPR) studies, data are generated by participants’/subjects’ decisions. When developing an HPR study, it is therefore important to have a clear understanding of the components of a decision and how those components stimulate participant behavior. To obtain valid and reliable results, study designers must sufficiently describe the decision model and its components. HPR studies require a detailed examination of the decision criteria, detailed documentation of the descriptive framework, and specification of hypotheses. The objects that stimulate subjects’ decisions in HPR studies are defined by attributes and attribute levels. Any limitations in the identification and presentation of attributes and levels can negatively affect preference elicitation, the quality of the HPR data, and study results. This practical guide shows how to link the HPR question to an underlying decision model. It covers how to (1) construct a descriptive framework that presents relevant characteristics of a decision object and (2) specify the research hypotheses. The paper outlines steps and available methods to achieve all this, including the methods’ advantages and limitations.

Introduction. This study aimed to understand the impact of alternative modes of information provision on the stated preferences of a sample of the public for attributes of newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) in the United Kingdom. Methods. An online discrete choice experiment survey was designed using 4 attributes to describe NBS (effect of treatment on the condition, time to receive results, whether the bloodspot is stored, false-positive rate). Survey respondents were randomized to 1 of 2 survey versions presenting the background training materials using text from a leaflet (leaflet version) or an animation (animation version). Heteroskedastic conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of mode of information provision on error variance. Results. The survey was completed by 1,000 respondents (leaflet = 525; animation = 475). Preferences for the attributes in the DCE were the same in both groups, but the group receiving the animation version had 9% less error variance in their responses. Respondents completing the animation version gave higher ratings compared with the leaflet version in terms of ease of perceived understanding. Subgroup analysis suggested that the animation was particularly effective at reducing error variance for women (20%), people with previous children (16.5%), and people between the ages of 35 and 45 y (11.8%). Limitations. This study used simple DCE with 4 attributes, and the results may vary for more complex choice questions. Conclusion. This study provides evidence that that supplementing the information package offered to parents choosing to take part in NBS with an animation may aid them their decision making. Further research would be needed to test the animation in the health system. Implications. Researchers designing DCE should carefully consider the design of their training materials to improve the quality of data collected. Highlights Prior to completing a discrete choice experiment about newborn bloodspot screening, respondents were shown information using either a leaflet-based or animated format. Respondents receiving information using an animation version reported that the information was slightly easier to understand and exhibited 9% less error variance in expressing their preferences for a newborn screening program. Using the animation version to present information appeared to have a larger impact in reducing the error variance of responses for specific respondents including women, individuals with children, individuals between the ages of 35 and 45 y, and individuals educated to degree level.

Daily insulin administration can be burdensome for people with type 2 diabetes (PwT2D) and can impact treatment adherence. This study investigated preferences for once-weekly, long-acting basal insulin for treatment of PwT2D. An online discrete-choice experiment was administered to PwT2D in the USA. Qualitative interviews informed the selection of six attributes: reduction in A1c level after 6 months, amount of time spent in optimal blood sugar range each day, number of serious low blood sugar events, number of nighttime low blood sugar events, change in weight because of the insulin over 6 months, and frequency of administration. Each participant completed eight questions offering a choice between two long-acting insulins; questions varied according to an experimental design. A fixed treatment choice question asked about preferences for daily versus weekly insulin, holding other treatment features constant. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit models, and heterogeneity was explored through subgroup analyses. Four hundred sixty-six PwT2D completed the survey (mean age, 57; mean A1c, 7.5

Abstract Background Antipsychotic medications are effective treatments for schizophrenia (SZ) and bipolar I disorder (BD-I), but when presented with different treatment options, there are tradeoffs that individuals make between clinical improvement and adverse effects. As new options become available, understanding the attributes of antipsychotic medications that are valued and the tradeoffs that individuals consider when choosing among them is important. Methods A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was administered online to elicit preferences across 5 attributes of oral antipsychotics: treatment efficacy (i.e., improvement in symptom severity), weight gain over 6 months, sexual dysfunction, sedation, and akathisia. Eligible respondents were aged 18–64 years with a self-reported clinician diagnosis of SZ or BD-I. Results In total, 144 respondents with SZ and 152 with BD-I completed the DCE. Of those with SZ, 50% identified themselves as female and 69.4% as White, with a mean (SD) age of 41.0 (10.1) years. Of those with BD-I, most identified themselves as female (69.7%) and as White (77.6%), with a mean (SD) age of 40.0 (10.7) years. In both cohorts, respondents preferred oral antipsychotics with better efficacy, less weight gain, no sexual dysfunction or akathisia, and lower risk of sedation. Treatment efficacy was the most important attribute, with a conditional relative importance (CRI) of 31.4% for respondents with SZ and 31.0% for those with BD-I. Weight gain (CRI = 21.3% and 23.1%, respectively) and sexual dysfunction (CRI = 23.4% and 19.2%, respectively) were adverse effects in this study that respondents most wanted to avoid. Respondents with SZ were willing to accept 9.8 lb of weight gain or > 25% risk of sedation for symptom improvement; those with BD-I were willing to accept 8.5 lb of weight gain or a > 25% risk of sedation. Conclusions In this DCE, treatment efficacy was the most important attribute of oral antipsychotic medications among respondents with SZ and BD-I. Weight gain and sexual dysfunction were the adverse effects respondents most wanted to avoid; however, both cohorts were willing to accept some weight gain or sedation to obtain better efficacy. These results highlight features that patients value in antipsychotic medications and how they balance benefits and risks when choosing among treatments.

This study quantified patient preferences for generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) treatment features.

Introduction & Objective: Once-weekly insulin has the potential to increase willingness to initiate and adhere to insulin therapies in people with type 2 diabetes requiring basal-only insulin therapy. However, the role of once-weekly insulin in people already treated with basal-bolus multiple daily injection regimens, such as people with type 1 diabetes (PwT1D), is less understood. This study aimed to quantify the preferences of PwT1D for novel long-acting insulins. Methods: A discrete choice experiment survey was administered to PwT1D in the United States. The survey included 8 questions offering a choice between experimentally designed pairs of hypothetical, long-acting insulins that varied by 6 attributes: reduction in A1c level after 6 months, daily time in range (TIR), number of serious low blood sugar events, number of nighttime low blood sugar events, weight change over 6 months, and administration frequency. A fixed choice question directly elicited preferences for flexible weekly over daily insulin, holding all other attributes equal. Data were analyzed with random-parameter logits. Results: The survey was completed by 200 PwT1D (mean: age = 41 years; A1c = 7.6%; 57% female). They were on a basal (100%), mealtime bolus (98%), or intermediate or premixed insulin (2%). Across attributes, respondents ranked achieving the longest TIR as the most important change, followed by equal importance on the largest change in the number of serious low blood sugar events per month, avoiding a 10 pound weight change, the largest change in the number of nighttime low blood sugar events per month, and weekly over daily basal administration. The largest reduction in HbA1c was the least important attribute in respondents’ decisions. In the fixed-choice question, 73% of people preferred flexible weekly over daily dosing for basal insulin. Conclusion: The most important attributes were changes in TIR and number of serious hypoglycemic events. PwT1D preferred weekly over daily basal insulin when all other attributes were equal. Disclosure D. Schapiro: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. M. Perez-Nieves: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Eli Lilly and Company. C.M. Vass: Other Relationship; Eli Lilly and Company. Consultant; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). J. Poon: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Eli Lilly and Company. F. Gelsey: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Eli Lilly and Company. A. Pierce: None. C. Mansfield: None.

Introduction & Objective: For people with type 2 diabetes (PwT2D), daily insulin regimens can be burdensome, difficult to adhere to, and a key barrier to initiating insulin therapy. Despite developments in once-weekly basal insulins, little is known about PwT2D preferences for administration frequency or its importance relative to other insulin features. Methods: An online discrete choice experiment survey was administered to adults with T2D in the United States. Each respondent completed 8 questions offering a choice between experimentally designed pairs of hypothetical, long-acting insulins that varied by 6 attributes: reduction in A1c level after 6 months, daily time in range, number of serious low blood sugar events, number of nighttime low blood sugar events, weight change over 6 months, and administration frequency. A fixed choice question directly elicited preferences for flexible weekly over daily insulin, holding all other attributes equal. Data were analyzed with random-parameter logits. Results: A total of 466 people (mean: age = 57; A1c = 7.5%; 59% female) completed the survey. They were on a basal/bolus (33.3%), basal-only (34.3%), or insulin-naïve (32.4%) regimen. Relative to other attributes, people placed most importance on avoiding a 10-pound weight change, followed by the largest changes in the number of serious and nighttime low blood sugar events and achieving the longest time in range. There was significant heterogeneity in preference: insulin-naïve respondents strongly preferred weekly administration, whether on the same day each week or a flexible weekly schedule, over daily (p < 0.05). In the fixed-choice question, most (67.6%) preferred flexible weekly over daily dosing. Conclusion: Overall, the most important attributes were weight change due to insulin and number of serious hypoglycemic events. PwT2D preferred weekly over daily basal insulin when all other treatment attributes were equal. The dosing flexibility could be crucial for the insulin naïve. Disclosure F. Gelsey: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Eli Lilly and Company. M. Perez-Nieves: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Eli Lilly and Company. C.M. Vass: Other Relationship; Eli Lilly and Company. Consultant; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). J. Poon: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Eli Lilly and Company. D. Schapiro: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. A. Pierce: None. C. Mansfield: None.

The interest in quantifying stated preferences for health and healthcare continues to grow, as does the technology available to support and improve health preference studies. Technological advancements in the last two decades have implications and opportunities for preference researchers designing, administering, analysing, interpreting and applying the results of stated preference surveys. In this paper, we summarise selected technologies and how these can benefit a preference study. We discuss empirical evaluations of the technology in preference research, with examples from health where possible. The technologies reviewed include serious games, virtual reality, eye tracking, innovative formats and decision aids with values clarification components. We conclude with a critical reflection on the benefits and limitations of implementing (often costly) technology alongside stated preference studies.

661 Background: To inform shared decision-making, it is important to learn how patients or physicians trade off the features of adjuvant treatments and whether there is heterogeneity within preferences. Methods: An online discrete-choice experiment survey was administered to patients with physician-confirmed renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and physician-defined intermediate high/high risk of recurrence and physicians who treat such patients. Hypothetical treatment choices were defined by median disease-free survival (DFS); 5-year overall survival (OS) rate; mode and frequency of administration; need for concomitant daily pill; treatment duration; and the risks of severe diarrhea, fatigue, and dizziness. After making an adjuvant treatment choice, respondents were presented with the opportunity to opt out of treatment. Patient and physician choice data were analyzed separately using latent class (LC) models, which identify clusters within patients and physicians making similar choices. Each class’ preference weights were used to calculate the conditional relative attribute importance. Results: LC analysis identified three classes among the 250 patients (% respondents) that placed greater relative importance on: 1) 5-year OS and opting into treatment (37.5%), 2) median DFS and opting into treatment (26.9%), and 3) treatment duration and opting out of treatment (35.5%) (Table). Among the 250 physicians, the LC analysis identified three classes that placed greater relative importance on: 1) 5-year OS and recommending treatment (37.5%), 2) median DFS and recommending treatment (37.8%), and 3) not recommending treatment (24.7%). Additionally, each LC analysis showed that the other treatment attributes evaluated were less important, but the importance varied by LC (Table). Conclusions: Heterogeneity in physician and patient preferences for RCC adjuvant therapy was found, highlighting a need for shared decision-making. Discordance within patients and physicians in the propensity to opt out of adjuvant treatment suggests patient-physician dialogue is important. [Table: see text]

Several attributes may be important in flu vaccine and since Covid-19, the role of health care professionals (HCPs) may have become more important in increasing flu vaccine uptake. We conducted a literature review to assess if previous preference research could inform future flu vaccination policies. We conducted a literature review to assess the most common attributes used in stated-preference studies to determine seasonal flu vaccination preferences. PubMed with key terms such as "discrete choice", "stated preference" and "flu/vaccin*" was used to retrieve relevant research. In total, twelve studies investigating consumer and HCP preferences for flu vaccines using a discrete-choice experiment were included. Six studies were conducted in vaccine-eligible populations, three were conducted with parents (specifically, two focused on older adults and one elicited preferences directly from HCPs in Hong Kong). Three studies were conducted in the Netherlands, two in Japan and four in China. Vaccine efficacy was most often framed in terms of percentage (n=7). Out of pocket cost and duration of immunity were common attributes. Source of recommendation for vaccination (i.e., regulatory or public health body) was assessed in 25% of the studies. In studies assessing parental preferences for their children influenza vaccination, risks of fewer side effects were, unsurprisingly, preferred. Finally, among HCPs, vaccine effectiveness and vaccination location (staff clinic/mobile vaccination center) were most important and could increase the probability of vaccination. Information incompleteness and asymmetry could play a role in vaccine hesitation and/or aversion. To increase vaccination rates, evidence on the attributes perceived to be important to both HCPs and the general population may help the design and delivery of vaccines that match consumers' preferences. Currently, there is a critical need for more stated-preference studies among HCPs to better understand the attributes likely to increase vaccination rates against seasonal influenza.

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP19-15 EXPLORING PERCEPTIONS OF THE RISK OF RECURRENCE IN RENAL CELL CARCINOMA: EVIDENCE FROM A SURVEY OF PRACTICING PHYSICIANS Rituparna Bhattacharya, Caroline Vass, Cathy Anne Pinto, Kelley Myers, Kentaro Imai, Cooper Bussberg, Shawna R. Calhoun, and Christine Poulos Rituparna BhattacharyaRituparna Bhattacharya More articles by this author , Caroline VassCaroline Vass More articles by this author , Cathy Anne PintoCathy Anne Pinto More articles by this author , Kelley MyersKelley Myers More articles by this author , Kentaro ImaiKentaro Imai More articles by this author , Cooper BussbergCooper Bussberg More articles by this author , Shawna R. CalhounShawna R. Calhoun More articles by this author , and Christine PoulosChristine Poulos More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003244.15AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The treatment landscape for early-stage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following nephrectomy is rapidly evolving, especially with the approval of pembrolizumab adjuvant therapy in the United States. Exploratory survey questions aimed to quantify qualitative descriptors of the level of risk of recurrence and to examine physicians’ perceptions of risk and its determinants. METHODS: The survey questions were included in a survey completed by physicians experienced with treating nonmetastatic RCC in the United States. Physicians were asked to (1) assign each of four categories of the risk of post nephrectomy disease recurrence (low, intermediate-low [int-low], intermediate-high [int-high], and high) to selected risk ranges; (2) categorize the risk of recurrence for three patient vignettes; and (3) assign an expected time until disease recurrence for two additional vignettes. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: 250 physicians (64% oncologists, 36% urologists) completed the survey. The median risk levels assigned by oncologists were <20% for low, 21%-50% for int-low, 51%-80% for int-high, and 51-80% for high risk. Urologists’ median risk levels were identical to those of oncologists in the sample, except for the int-high level, which urologists assigned 21%-50%. On average, physicians perceived an individual with pT3, Fuhrman Grade 3, N0, M0 tumor and ECOG Performance status (PS)=1 as int-low risk. Int-high risk was the median perceived risk level assessed for the following two vignettes: pT2, N0, M0, Fuhrman grade 4 tumor with sarcomatoid feature and ECOG PS 0; and pT3, N1, M0, Fuhrman grade 3 tumor and ECOG PS 1. More than one-third of physicians expected a patient with pT3 tumor to remain disease free for 2-3 years post nephrectomy (n=95; 38%) if N0 M0, and 1-2 years (n=92; 36.8%) if N1 M0. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians’ perception of risk of recurrence post nephrectomy is critical when evaluating patient eligibility for and choosing to recommend adjuvant therapy. This exploratory analysis provides insights into risk perceptions among oncologists and urologists. Source of Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e271 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Rituparna Bhattacharya More articles by this author Caroline Vass More articles by this author Cathy Anne Pinto More articles by this author Kelley Myers More articles by this author Kentaro Imai More articles by this author Cooper Bussberg More articles by this author Shawna R. Calhoun More articles by this author Christine Poulos More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

635 Background: Although a handful of studies have elicited treatment preferences in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), most focused on advanced disease. This study elicited United States patients’ and physicians’ preferences for adjuvant treatment characteristics. Methods: Patients with physician-confirmed RCC and (physician-defined) intermediate high or high risk of recurrence and physicians who treat such patients completed online surveys in Q1-Q2 2022 with a discrete-choice experiment. Hypothetical treatments were described by median disease-free survival (DFS); 5-year overall survival (OS) rate; mode and frequency of administration; need for concomitant daily pill; treatment duration; and the risks of severe diarrhea, fatigue, and dizziness. Preference weight estimates from random parameter logit analysis were used to calculate the conditional relative importance of attributes and risk tolerance measures. Results: 250 patients (50% post-nephrectomy) and 250 physicians (64% oncologists; 36% urologists) completed the survey. OS was the most important attribute to both patients and physicians, but DFS was also important (Table). OS had a greater influence on physicians’ choices than on patients’ choices. On average, OS was 3.2 and 2.5 times as important as DFS and 5.8-9.1 and 2.4-3 times more important than the evaluated risks for physicians and patients, respectively. Further, DFS was 1.8-2.9 times more important to physicians than the evaluated risks, while the importance of DFS and risks were nearly equivalent for patients. The need for concomitant oral medication was the least important attribute to patients and physicians. Both groups were willing to accept more than a 25-percentage-point increase in the risks of severe diarrhea, fatigue, and dizziness for improvements (from 45% to 60% or 85%) in OS. Conclusions: While both patients and physicians weighted OS improvements more than the other treatment attributes, including risks, physicians tended to place lower importance on changes in risk and administration than patients. Physicians and patients should discuss potential benefits and harms when considering adjuvant RCC therapies. [Table: see text]

This study aimed to elicit and quantify preferences for treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). We conducted a discrete-choice experiment among adolescents with JIA in the United States (US) (n = 197) and United Kingdom (UK) (n = 100) and caregivers of children with JIA in the US (n = 207) and UK (n = 200). In a series of questions, respondents chose between experimentally designed profiles for hypothetical JIA treatments that varied in efficacy (symptom control; time until next flare-up), side effects (stomachache, nausea, and vomiting; headaches), mode and frequency of administration, and the need for combination therapy. Using a random-parameters logit model, we estimated preference weights for these attributes, from which we derived their conditional relative importance. On average, respondents preferred greater symptom control; greater time until the next flare-up; less stomachache, nausea, and vomiting; and fewer headaches. However, adolescents and caregivers in the US were generally indifferent across varying modes and frequencies of administration. UK adolescents and caregivers preferred tablets, syrup, or injections to intravenous infusions. US and UK adolescents were indifferent between treatment with monotherapy or combination therapy; caregivers in the UK preferred treatment with combination therapy to monotherapy. Subgroup analysis showed preference heterogeneity across characteristics including gender, treatment experience, and symptom experience in both adolescents and caregivers. Improved symptom control, prolonged time to next flare-up, and avoidance of adverse events such as headache, stomachache, nausea, and vomiting are desirable characteristics of treatment regimens for adolescents with JIA and their caregivers.