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


Ontology type: schema:ScholarlyArticle     


Article Info

DATE

2021-12-20

AUTHORS

Megan Thomas, Deborah A. Marshall, Daksh Choudhary, Susan J. Bartlett, Adalberto Loyola Sanchez, Glen S. Hazlewood

ABSTRACT

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

PAGES

1-12

Identifiers

URI

http://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w

DIMENSIONS

https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1144017738

PUBMED

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34927216


Indexing Status Check whether this publication has been indexed by Scopus and Web Of Science using the SN Indexing Status Tool
Incoming Citations Browse incoming citations for this publication using opencitations.net

JSON-LD is the canonical representation for SciGraph data.

TIP: You can open this SciGraph record using an external JSON-LD service: JSON-LD Playground Google SDTT

[
  {
    "@context": "https://springernature.github.io/scigraph/jsonld/sgcontext.json", 
    "about": [
      {
        "id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/11", 
        "inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/", 
        "name": "Medical and Health Sciences", 
        "type": "DefinedTerm"
      }, 
      {
        "id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/1117", 
        "inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/", 
        "name": "Public Health and Health Services", 
        "type": "DefinedTerm"
      }
    ], 
    "author": [
      {
        "affiliation": {
          "alternateName": "Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4N1, Calgary, AB, Canada", 
          "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.22072.35", 
          "name": [
            "Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4N1, Calgary, AB, Canada"
          ], 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "familyName": "Thomas", 
        "givenName": "Megan", 
        "id": "sg:person.010507042205.59", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.010507042205.59"
        ], 
        "type": "Person"
      }, 
      {
        "affiliation": {
          "alternateName": "Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada", 
          "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.22072.35", 
          "name": [
            "Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4N1, Calgary, AB, Canada", 
            "Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada"
          ], 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "familyName": "Marshall", 
        "givenName": "Deborah A.", 
        "id": "sg:person.01127752574.73", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.01127752574.73"
        ], 
        "type": "Person"
      }, 
      {
        "affiliation": {
          "alternateName": "Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada", 
          "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.22072.35", 
          "name": [
            "Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada"
          ], 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "familyName": "Choudhary", 
        "givenName": "Daksh", 
        "id": "sg:person.012476351517.01", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.012476351517.01"
        ], 
        "type": "Person"
      }, 
      {
        "affiliation": {
          "alternateName": "Centre for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Research Institute McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada", 
          "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.63984.30", 
          "name": [
            "Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada", 
            "Centre for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Research Institute McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada"
          ], 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "familyName": "Bartlett", 
        "givenName": "Susan J.", 
        "id": "sg:person.01013606445.46", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.01013606445.46"
        ], 
        "type": "Person"
      }, 
      {
        "affiliation": {
          "alternateName": "Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada", 
          "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.17089.37", 
          "name": [
            "Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada"
          ], 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "familyName": "Sanchez", 
        "givenName": "Adalberto Loyola", 
        "type": "Person"
      }, 
      {
        "affiliation": {
          "alternateName": "Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada", 
          "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.22072.35", 
          "name": [
            "Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4N1, Calgary, AB, Canada", 
            "Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada"
          ], 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "familyName": "Hazlewood", 
        "givenName": "Glen S.", 
        "id": "sg:person.0731564305.93", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.0731564305.93"
        ], 
        "type": "Person"
      }
    ], 
    "citation": [
      {
        "id": "sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1020605777", 
          "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2"
        ], 
        "type": "CreativeWork"
      }, 
      {
        "id": "sg:pub.10.1186/s13561-015-0079-x", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1031266489", 
          "https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-015-0079-x"
        ], 
        "type": "CreativeWork"
      }, 
      {
        "id": "sg:pub.10.1186/1745-6215-8-38", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1000328806", 
          "https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-38"
        ], 
        "type": "CreativeWork"
      }, 
      {
        "id": "sg:pub.10.2165/11633720-000000000-00000", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1069132382", 
          "https://doi.org/10.2165/11633720-000000000-00000"
        ], 
        "type": "CreativeWork"
      }, 
      {
        "id": "sg:pub.10.1186/s13047-017-0240-3", 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1099678957", 
          "https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-017-0240-3"
        ], 
        "type": "CreativeWork"
      }
    ], 
    "datePublished": "2021-12-20", 
    "datePublishedReg": "2021-12-20", 
    "description": "Background and ObjectivePatients can express preferences for different treatment options in a healthcare context, and these can be measured with quantitative preference elicitation methods.ObjectiveOur objective was to conduct a scoping review to determine how preference elicitation methods have been used in the design of clinical trials.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify primary research studies, involving any health condition, that used quantitative preference elicitation methods, including direct utility-based approaches, and stated preference studies, to value health trade-offs in the context of clinical trial design. Studies were identified by screening existing systematic and scoping reviews and with a primary literature search in MEDLINE from 2010 to the present. We extracted study characteristics and the application of preference elicitation methods to clinical trial design according to the SPIRIT checklist from primary studies and summarized the findings descriptively.ResultsWe identified 18 eligible studies. The included studies applied patient preferences to five areas of clinical trial design: intervention selection (n = 1), designing N-of-1 trials (n = 1), outcome selection and weighting composite and ordinal outcomes (n = 12), sample size calculations (n = 2), and recruitment (n = 2). Using preference elicitation methods led to different decisions being made, such as using preference-weighted composite outcomes instead of equally weighted composite outcomes.ConclusionPreference elicitation methods are infrequently used to design clinical trials but may lead to changes throughout the trial that could affect the evidence generated. Future work should consider measurement challenges and explore stakeholder perceptions.", 
    "genre": "article", 
    "id": "sg:pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w", 
    "inLanguage": "en", 
    "isAccessibleForFree": false, 
    "isPartOf": [
      {
        "id": "sg:journal.1038760", 
        "issn": [
          "1178-1653", 
          "1178-1661"
        ], 
        "name": "The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research", 
        "publisher": "Springer Nature", 
        "type": "Periodical"
      }
    ], 
    "keywords": [
      "clinical trial design", 
      "trial design", 
      "composite outcome", 
      "clinical trials", 
      "different treatment options", 
      "primary literature search", 
      "Scoping Review", 
      "primary research studies", 
      "SPIRIT checklist", 
      "treatment options", 
      "patient preferences", 
      "eligible studies", 
      "ObjectiveOur objective", 
      "outcome selection", 
      "study characteristics", 
      "literature search", 
      "health conditions", 
      "sample size calculation", 
      "trials", 
      "intervention selection", 
      "primary studies", 
      "outcomes", 
      "size calculation", 
      "review", 
      "healthcare context", 
      "ObjectivePatients", 
      "MEDLINE", 
      "study", 
      "MethodsWe", 
      "preference elicitation methods", 
      "ResultsWe", 
      "ordinal outcomes", 
      "preference studies", 
      "research studies", 
      "health", 
      "checklist", 
      "options", 
      "findings", 
      "recruitment", 
      "evidence", 
      "background", 
      "changes", 
      "objective", 
      "search", 
      "preferences", 
      "method", 
      "stakeholder perceptions", 
      "future work", 
      "perception", 
      "selection", 
      "measurement challenges", 
      "elicitation methods", 
      "present", 
      "area", 
      "challenges", 
      "characteristics", 
      "design", 
      "decisions", 
      "conditions", 
      "context", 
      "approach", 
      "different decisions", 
      "applications", 
      "work", 
      "utility-based approach", 
      "Trade-Offs", 
      "calculations"
    ], 
    "name": "The Application of Preference Elicitation Methods in Clinical Trial Design to Quantify Trade-Offs: A Scoping Review", 
    "pagination": "1-12", 
    "productId": [
      {
        "name": "dimensions_id", 
        "type": "PropertyValue", 
        "value": [
          "pub.1144017738"
        ]
      }, 
      {
        "name": "doi", 
        "type": "PropertyValue", 
        "value": [
          "10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w"
        ]
      }, 
      {
        "name": "pubmed_id", 
        "type": "PropertyValue", 
        "value": [
          "34927216"
        ]
      }
    ], 
    "sameAs": [
      "https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w", 
      "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1144017738"
    ], 
    "sdDataset": "articles", 
    "sdDatePublished": "2022-05-20T07:38", 
    "sdLicense": "https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/", 
    "sdPublisher": {
      "name": "Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project", 
      "type": "Organization"
    }, 
    "sdSource": "s3://com-springernature-scigraph/baseset/20220519/entities/gbq_results/article/article_896.jsonl", 
    "type": "ScholarlyArticle", 
    "url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w"
  }
]
 

Download the RDF metadata as:  json-ld nt turtle xml License info

HOW TO GET THIS DATA PROGRAMMATICALLY:

JSON-LD is a popular format for linked data which is fully compatible with JSON.

curl -H 'Accept: application/ld+json' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w'

N-Triples is a line-based linked data format ideal for batch operations.

curl -H 'Accept: application/n-triples' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w'

Turtle is a human-readable linked data format.

curl -H 'Accept: text/turtle' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w'

RDF/XML is a standard XML format for linked data.

curl -H 'Accept: application/rdf+xml' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w'


 

This table displays all metadata directly associated to this object as RDF triples.

186 TRIPLES      22 PREDICATES      96 URIs      83 LITERALS      5 BLANK NODES

Subject Predicate Object
1 sg:pub.10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w schema:about anzsrc-for:11
2 anzsrc-for:1117
3 schema:author Na016abbcea6f4fc8b751749c592502ba
4 schema:citation sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2
5 sg:pub.10.1186/1745-6215-8-38
6 sg:pub.10.1186/s13047-017-0240-3
7 sg:pub.10.1186/s13561-015-0079-x
8 sg:pub.10.2165/11633720-000000000-00000
9 schema:datePublished 2021-12-20
10 schema:datePublishedReg 2021-12-20
11 schema:description Background and ObjectivePatients can express preferences for different treatment options in a healthcare context, and these can be measured with quantitative preference elicitation methods.ObjectiveOur objective was to conduct a scoping review to determine how preference elicitation methods have been used in the design of clinical trials.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify primary research studies, involving any health condition, that used quantitative preference elicitation methods, including direct utility-based approaches, and stated preference studies, to value health trade-offs in the context of clinical trial design. Studies were identified by screening existing systematic and scoping reviews and with a primary literature search in MEDLINE from 2010 to the present. We extracted study characteristics and the application of preference elicitation methods to clinical trial design according to the SPIRIT checklist from primary studies and summarized the findings descriptively.ResultsWe identified 18 eligible studies. The included studies applied patient preferences to five areas of clinical trial design: intervention selection (n = 1), designing N-of-1 trials (n = 1), outcome selection and weighting composite and ordinal outcomes (n = 12), sample size calculations (n = 2), and recruitment (n = 2). Using preference elicitation methods led to different decisions being made, such as using preference-weighted composite outcomes instead of equally weighted composite outcomes.ConclusionPreference elicitation methods are infrequently used to design clinical trials but may lead to changes throughout the trial that could affect the evidence generated. Future work should consider measurement challenges and explore stakeholder perceptions.
12 schema:genre article
13 schema:inLanguage en
14 schema:isAccessibleForFree false
15 schema:isPartOf sg:journal.1038760
16 schema:keywords MEDLINE
17 MethodsWe
18 ObjectiveOur objective
19 ObjectivePatients
20 ResultsWe
21 SPIRIT checklist
22 Scoping Review
23 Trade-Offs
24 applications
25 approach
26 area
27 background
28 calculations
29 challenges
30 changes
31 characteristics
32 checklist
33 clinical trial design
34 clinical trials
35 composite outcome
36 conditions
37 context
38 decisions
39 design
40 different decisions
41 different treatment options
42 elicitation methods
43 eligible studies
44 evidence
45 findings
46 future work
47 health
48 health conditions
49 healthcare context
50 intervention selection
51 literature search
52 measurement challenges
53 method
54 objective
55 options
56 ordinal outcomes
57 outcome selection
58 outcomes
59 patient preferences
60 perception
61 preference elicitation methods
62 preference studies
63 preferences
64 present
65 primary literature search
66 primary research studies
67 primary studies
68 recruitment
69 research studies
70 review
71 sample size calculation
72 search
73 selection
74 size calculation
75 stakeholder perceptions
76 study
77 study characteristics
78 treatment options
79 trial design
80 trials
81 utility-based approach
82 work
83 schema:name The Application of Preference Elicitation Methods in Clinical Trial Design to Quantify Trade-Offs: A Scoping Review
84 schema:pagination 1-12
85 schema:productId N8c3499fbb8504442839e1b3beaa12f86
86 N913cc3d675b24d7a9f577d464a9f3691
87 Nbdb2bf3032ba44aba51f1f6eead1b427
88 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1144017738
89 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w
90 schema:sdDatePublished 2022-05-20T07:38
91 schema:sdLicense https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/
92 schema:sdPublisher N441d57490c3b4519a9f8add0c0d69d42
93 schema:url https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w
94 sgo:license sg:explorer/license/
95 sgo:sdDataset articles
96 rdf:type schema:ScholarlyArticle
97 N441d57490c3b4519a9f8add0c0d69d42 schema:name Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project
98 rdf:type schema:Organization
99 N4e9be5175c0c4c2daa9e9f0690cfa980 rdf:first sg:person.012476351517.01
100 rdf:rest N85a3dcc4075849c6a8456eda1803fa62
101 N8437dbcdf83f4843abf1a3f64b8df667 rdf:first N9d96133cbec04804a19e7fe9226eff1d
102 rdf:rest Nc1567f7042fe404784dfc1f1d7a7b8a3
103 N85a3dcc4075849c6a8456eda1803fa62 rdf:first sg:person.01013606445.46
104 rdf:rest N8437dbcdf83f4843abf1a3f64b8df667
105 N8c3499fbb8504442839e1b3beaa12f86 schema:name doi
106 schema:value 10.1007/s40271-021-00560-w
107 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
108 N913cc3d675b24d7a9f577d464a9f3691 schema:name pubmed_id
109 schema:value 34927216
110 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
111 N9d96133cbec04804a19e7fe9226eff1d schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.17089.37
112 schema:familyName Sanchez
113 schema:givenName Adalberto Loyola
114 rdf:type schema:Person
115 Na016abbcea6f4fc8b751749c592502ba rdf:first sg:person.010507042205.59
116 rdf:rest Ne82572c1d2bf47e588a6179ca53a27ae
117 Nbdb2bf3032ba44aba51f1f6eead1b427 schema:name dimensions_id
118 schema:value pub.1144017738
119 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
120 Nc1567f7042fe404784dfc1f1d7a7b8a3 rdf:first sg:person.0731564305.93
121 rdf:rest rdf:nil
122 Ne82572c1d2bf47e588a6179ca53a27ae rdf:first sg:person.01127752574.73
123 rdf:rest N4e9be5175c0c4c2daa9e9f0690cfa980
124 anzsrc-for:11 schema:inDefinedTermSet anzsrc-for:
125 schema:name Medical and Health Sciences
126 rdf:type schema:DefinedTerm
127 anzsrc-for:1117 schema:inDefinedTermSet anzsrc-for:
128 schema:name Public Health and Health Services
129 rdf:type schema:DefinedTerm
130 sg:journal.1038760 schema:issn 1178-1653
131 1178-1661
132 schema:name The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
133 schema:publisher Springer Nature
134 rdf:type schema:Periodical
135 sg:person.01013606445.46 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.63984.30
136 schema:familyName Bartlett
137 schema:givenName Susan J.
138 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.01013606445.46
139 rdf:type schema:Person
140 sg:person.010507042205.59 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.22072.35
141 schema:familyName Thomas
142 schema:givenName Megan
143 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.010507042205.59
144 rdf:type schema:Person
145 sg:person.01127752574.73 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.22072.35
146 schema:familyName Marshall
147 schema:givenName Deborah A.
148 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.01127752574.73
149 rdf:type schema:Person
150 sg:person.012476351517.01 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.22072.35
151 schema:familyName Choudhary
152 schema:givenName Daksh
153 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.012476351517.01
154 rdf:type schema:Person
155 sg:person.0731564305.93 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.22072.35
156 schema:familyName Hazlewood
157 schema:givenName Glen S.
158 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.0731564305.93
159 rdf:type schema:Person
160 sg:pub.10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1020605777
161 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2
162 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
163 sg:pub.10.1186/1745-6215-8-38 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1000328806
164 https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-38
165 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
166 sg:pub.10.1186/s13047-017-0240-3 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1099678957
167 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-017-0240-3
168 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
169 sg:pub.10.1186/s13561-015-0079-x schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1031266489
170 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-015-0079-x
171 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
172 sg:pub.10.2165/11633720-000000000-00000 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1069132382
173 https://doi.org/10.2165/11633720-000000000-00000
174 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
175 grid-institutes:grid.17089.37 schema:alternateName Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
176 schema:name Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
177 rdf:type schema:Organization
178 grid-institutes:grid.22072.35 schema:alternateName Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4N1, Calgary, AB, Canada
179 Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
180 schema:name Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4N1, Calgary, AB, Canada
181 Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
182 rdf:type schema:Organization
183 grid-institutes:grid.63984.30 schema:alternateName Centre for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Research Institute McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
184 schema:name Centre for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Research Institute McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
185 Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
186 rdf:type schema:Organization
 




Preview window. Press ESC to close (or click here)


...