This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Livingstone H, Verdiel V, Crosbie H, Upadhyaya S, Harris K, Thomas L. Evaluation of the impact of patient input in health technology assessments at NICE. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2021; 37(1), E33. doi: 10.1017/S0266462320002214.LivingstoneHVerdielVCrosbieHUpadhyayaSHarrisKThomasLEvaluation of the impact of patient input in health technology assessments at NICE2021371E3310.1017/S026646232000221433509314Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Wale JL, Sullivan M. Exploration of the visibility of patient input in final recommendation documentation for three health technology assessment bodies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2020; 36(3): 197–203. doi: 10.1017/S0266462320000240.WaleJLSullivanMExploration of the visibility of patient input in final recommendation documentation for three health technology assessment bodies202036319720310.1017/S026646232000024032375904Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
van Overbeeke E, Forrester V, Simoens S, Huys I. Use of patient preferences in health technology assessment: perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA representatives. Patient 2021; 14(1): 119–128. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00449-0.van OverbeekeEForresterVSimoensSHuysIUse of patient preferences in health technology assessment: perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA representatives202114111912810.1007/s40271-020-00449-0779420432856278Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
United States Government. An Act to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st century cures, and for other purposes. Public Law 114–255. 114th Congress. H.R. 34. 2016. Available from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr34enr/pdf/BILLS-114hr34enr.pdf (accessed 14 March 2022).United States GovernmentPublic Law 114–255. 114th Congress. H.R. 34. 2016. Available from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr34enr/pdf/BILLS-114hr34enr.pdf (accessed 14 March 2022).Search in Google Scholar
Gabay M. 21st century cures act. Hosp Pharm 2017; 52(4): 264–265. doi: 10.1310/hpj5204-264.GabayM21st century cures act201752426426510.1310/hpj5204-264542482928515504Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Gerstein HC, McMurray J, Holman RR. Real-world studies no substitute for RCTs in establishing efficacy. Lancet 2019; 393(10168):210–211. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32840-X.GersteinHCMcMurrayJHolmanRRReal-world studies no substitute for RCTs in establishing efficacy20193931016821021110.1016/S0140-6736(18)32840-X30663582Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Mott DJ. Incorporating quantitative patient preference data into healthcare decision making processes: Is HTA falling behind? Patient 2018; 11(3): 249–252. doi: 10.1007/s40271-018-0305-9.MottDJIncorporating quantitative patient preference data into healthcare decision making processes: Is HTA falling behind?201811324925210.1007/s40271-018-0305-929500706Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
EMA. PRIME: priority medicines [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/prime-priority-medicines (accessed 2 July 2020).EMA2016Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/prime-priority-medicines (accessed 2 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
FDA. Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Accelerated Approval, Priority Review [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-drug-and-device-approvals/fast-track-breakthrough-therapy-accelerated-approval-priority-review (accessed 2 July 2020).FDA2018Available from: https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-drug-and-device-approvals/fast-track-breakthrough-therapy-accelerated-approval-priority-review (accessed 2 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
MHRA. Guidance on Project Orbis [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-project-orbis (accessed 14 March 2022).MHRA2020Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-project-orbis (accessed 14 March 2022).Search in Google Scholar
MHRA. Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/innovative-licensing-and-access-pathway (accessed 14 March 2022).MHRA2021Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/innovative-licensing-and-access-pathway (accessed 14 March 2022).Search in Google Scholar
Spoors J, Miners A, Cairns J, et al. Payer and implementation challenges with advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). BioDrugs 2021; 35: 1–5. doi: 10.1007/s40259-020-00457-4.SpoorsJMinersACairnsJPayer and implementation challenges with advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs)2021351510.1007/s40259-020-00457-433226582Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
MDIC. MDIC Patient-Centred Benefit-Risk Project Report: A Framework for Incorporating Information on Patient Preferences Regarding Benefit and Risk into Regulatory Assessments of New Medical Technology. 2015. Available from https://www.fda.gov/media/95591/download (accessed 14 March 2022).MDIC2015Available from https://www.fda.gov/media/95591/download (accessed 14 March 2022).Search in Google Scholar
Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, et al. A Framework for Incorporating Patient Preferences Regarding Benefits and Risks into Regulatory Assessment of Medical Technologies. Value Health 2016; 19(6): 746–750. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.019.HoMSahaAMcClearyKKA Framework for Incorporating Patient Preferences Regarding Benefits and Risks into Regulatory Assessment of Medical Technologies201619674675010.1016/j.jval.2016.02.01927712701Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Mangham LJ, Hanson K, McPake B. How to do (or not to do) ... Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan 2009; 151–8. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czn047.ManghamLJHansonKMcPakeBHow to do (or not to do) ... Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country2009151810.1093/heapol/czn04719112071Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Brown TM, Pashos CL, Joshi AV., Lee WC. The perspective of patients with haemophilia with inhibitors and their care givers: Preferences for treatment characteristics. Haemophilia 2011; 17(3): 476–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02401.x.BrownTMPashosCLJoshiAV.LeeWCThe perspective of patients with haemophilia with inhibitors and their care givers: Preferences for treatment characteristics20111734768210.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02401.x21091851Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 32(9): 883–902. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x.ClarkMDDetermannDPetrouSMoroDde Bekker-GrobEWDiscrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature201432988390210.1007/s40273-014-0170-x25005924Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics 2019; 37(2): 201–226. doi: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2.SoekhaiVde Bekker-GrobEWEllisARVassCMDiscrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future201937220122610.1007/s40273-018-0734-2638605530392040Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Vass C, Payne K. Using discrete choice experiments to inform the benefit-risk assessment of medicines: Are we ready yet? Pharmacoeconomics 2017; 35: 859–66. doi: 10.1007/s40273-017-0518-0.VassCPayneKUsing discrete choice experiments to inform the benefit-risk assessment of medicines: Are we ready yet?2017358596610.1007/s40273-017-0518-0556334728536955Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
BMJ Best Practice. Haemophilia [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-gb/468 (accessed 30 July 2020).BMJ Best Practice2019Available from: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/topics/en-gb/468 (accessed 30 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
National Hemophilia Foundation. History of Bleeding Disorders [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.hemophilia.org/Bleeding-Disorders/History-of-Bleeding-Disorders (accessed 30 July 2020).National Hemophilia Foundation2020Available from: https://www.hemophilia.org/Bleeding-Disorders/History-of-Bleeding-Disorders (accessed 30 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Specialist Pharmacy Service. SPS Horizon Scanning Service [Internet]. Available from: https://www.sps.nhs.uk/articles/sps-horizon-scanning-service/ (accessed 6 January 2022).Specialist Pharmacy ServiceAvailable from: https://www.sps.nhs.uk/articles/sps-horizon-scanning-service/ (accessed 6 January 2022).Search in Google Scholar
Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, et al. Budget impact analysis – Principles of good practice: Report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health 2014; 17(1): 5–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.08.2291.SullivanSDMauskopfJAAugustovskiFBudget impact analysis – Principles of good practice: Report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force201417151410.1016/j.jval.2013.08.229124438712Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Terris-Prestholt F, Quaife M, Vickerman P. Parameterising user uptake in economic evaluations: the role of discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2016; 25 (Suppl 1): 116–23. doi: 10.1002/hec.3297.Terris-PrestholtFQuaifeMVickermanPParameterising user uptake in economic evaluations: the role of discrete choice experiments201625Suppl 11162310.1002/hec.3297506664426773825Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Quaife M, Terris-Prestholt F, Di Tanna GL, Vickerman P. How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity. Eur J Heal Econ 2018; 19(8): 1053–1066. doi: 10.1007/s10198-018-0954-6.QuaifeMTerris-PrestholtFDi TannaGLVickermanPHow well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity20181981053106610.1007/s10198-018-0954-629380229Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5(1): 210. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.OuzzaniMHammadyHFedorowiczZElmagarmidARayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews20165121010.1186/s13643-016-0384-4513914027919275Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Mantovani LG, Monzini MS, Mannucci PM, et al. Differences between patients’, physicians’ and pharmacists’ preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2005; 11(6): 589–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2005.01159.x.MantovaniLGMonziniMSMannucciPMDifferences between patients’, physicians’ and pharmacists’ preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: A discrete choice experiment20051165899710.1111/j.1365-2516.2005.01159.x16236108Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Lee WC, Joshi AV, Woolford S, et al. Physicians’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates in the treatment of haemophilia with inhibitors: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2008; 454–65. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01656.x.LeeWCJoshiAVWoolfordSPhysicians’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates in the treatment of haemophilia with inhibitors: A discrete choice experiment20084546510.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01656.x18282152Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Scalone L, Mantovani LG, Borghetti F, von Mackensen S, Gringeri A. Patients’, physicians’, and pharmacists’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates to treat haemophilia with inhibitors: Results from the COHIBA Study. Haemophilia 2009; 15(2): 473–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01926.x.ScaloneLMantovaniLGBorghettiFvon MackensenSGringeriAPatients’, physicians’, and pharmacists’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates to treat haemophilia with inhibitors: Results from the COHIBA Study20091524738610.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01926.x19347988Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Mohamed AF, Epstein JD, Li-Mcleod JM. Patient and parent preferences for haemophilia A treatments. Haemophilia 2011; 17(2): 209–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02411.x.MohamedAFEpsteinJDLi-McleodJMPatient and parent preferences for haemophilia A treatments20111722091410.1111/j.1365-2516.2010.02411.x21070493Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Gelhorn H, Merikle E, Krishnan S, Nemes L, Leissinger C, Valentino L. Physician preferences for medication attributes for the prophylactic treatment of patients with severe haemophilia A with inhibitors to factor VIII. Haemophilia 2013; 19(1): 119–25. doi: 10.1111/hae.12011.GelhornHMerikleEKrishnanSNemesLLeissingerCValentinoLPhysician preferences for medication attributes for the prophylactic treatment of patients with severe haemophilia A with inhibitors to factor VIII20131911192510.1111/hae.1201123005041Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Chaugule SS, Hay JW, Young G. Understanding patient preferences and willingness to pay for hemophilia therapies. Patient Prefer Adherence 2015; 9: 1623–30. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S92985.ChauguleSSHayJWYoungGUnderstanding patient preferences and willingness to pay for hemophilia therapies2015916233010.2147/PPA.S92985464660026635471Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Lock J, de Bekker-Grob EW, Urhan G, et al. Facilitating the implementation of pharmacokinetic-guided dosing of prophylaxis in haemophilia care by discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2016; 22(1): e1–e10. doi: 10.1111/hae.12851.LockJde Bekker-GrobEWUrhanGFacilitating the implementation of pharmacokinetic-guided dosing of prophylaxis in haemophilia care by discrete choice experiment2016221e1e1010.1111/hae.1285126612493Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Fifer S, Kerr AM, Parken C, Hamrosi K, Eid S. Treatment preferences in people with haemophilia A or caregivers of people with haemophilia A: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2020; 26(Suppl 5): 30–40. doi: 10.1111/hae.14037.FiferSKerrAMParkenCHamrosiKEidSTreatment preferences in people with haemophilia A or caregivers of people with haemophilia A: A discrete choice experiment202026Suppl 5304010.1111/hae.1403732935396Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Su J, Li N, Joshi N, et al. Patient and caregiver preferences for haemophilia A treatments: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2020; 26(6): e291–e299. doi: 10.1111/hae.14137.SuJLiNJoshiNPatient and caregiver preferences for haemophilia A treatments: A discrete choice experiment2020266e291e29910.1111/hae.1413732937681Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Park YS, Hwang TJ, Cho GJ, et al. Patients’ and parents’ satisfaction with, and preference for, haemophilia A treatments: a cross-sectional, multicentre, observational study. Haemophilia 2021; 27(4): 563–573. doi: 10.1111/hae.14304.ParkYSHwangTJChoGJPatients’ and parents’ satisfaction with, and preference for, haemophilia A treatments: a cross-sectional, multicentre, observational study202127456357310.1111/hae.14304836214434128300Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Witkop M, Morgan G, O’Hara J, et al. Patient preferences and priorities for haemophilia gene therapy in the US: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia 2021; 27(5): 769–782. doi: 10.1111/hae.14383.WitkopMMorganGO’HaraJPatient preferences and priorities for haemophilia gene therapy in the US: A discrete choice experiment202127576978210.1111/hae.14383929045734310811Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Tegenge MA, Belov A, Moncur M, Forshee R, Irony T. Comparing clotting factors attributes across different methods of preference elicitation in haemophilia patients. Haemophilia 2020; 26(5): 817–825. doi: 10.1111/hae.14119.TegengeMABelovAMoncurMForsheeRIronyTComparing clotting factors attributes across different methods of preference elicitation in haemophilia patients202026581782510.1111/hae.1411932842165Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Botteman M, Martin S, Ng X, Joshi N, Shah R. PSY201 A systematic review of discrete choice experiments in hemophilia. Value Health 2018; 21 (Suppl 3): S470. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2775.BottemanMMartinSNgXJoshiNShahRPSY201 A systematic review of discrete choice experiments in hemophilia201821Suppl 3S47010.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2775Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Morgan G, Martin A, Mighiu C, et al. PMU95 A systematic literature review of preference studies in haemophilia. Value Health 2020; 23 (Suppl 2): S619. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020-08-1307.MorganGMartinAMighiuCPMU95 A systematic literature review of preference studies in haemophilia202023Suppl 2S61910.1016/j.jval.2020-08-1307Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Sutphin J, Bartelt-Hofer J, Leach C, et al. Treatment preferences in hemophilia: results from a targeted literature review. Poster presented at the Virtual EAHAD 2021 Congress; February 3, 2021. [abstract] Haemophilia. 2021 Feb; 27(S2):134. doi: 10.1111/hae.14236.SutphinJBartelt-HoferJLeachCTreatment preferences in hemophilia: results from a targeted literature reviewPoster presented at the Virtual EAHAD 2021 CongressFebruary 3, 2021[abstract]2021Feb27S213410.1111/hae.14236Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
van Overbeeke E, Hauber B, Michelsen S, et al. Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey. Haemophilia 2021; 27(6): 957–966. doi: 10.1111/hae.14401.van OverbeekeEHauberBMichelsenSPatient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey202127695796610.1111/hae.14401929317334472162Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Soekhai V, Whichello C, Levitan B, et al. Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today 2019; 24(7): 1324–1331. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2019.05.001.SoekhaiVWhichelloCLevitanBMethods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review20192471324133110.1016/j.drudis.2019.05.00131077814Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
van Overbeeke E, Hauber B, Michelsen S, Goldman M, Simoens S, Huys I. Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol development for the PAVING Study in hemophilia. Front Med (Lausanne) 2020; 8: 595797. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.595797.van OverbeekeEHauberBMichelsenSGoldmanMSimoensSHuysIPatient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol development for the PAVING Study in hemophilia2020859579710.3389/fmed.2021.595797798505633768101Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Vass C, Davison NJ, Stichele G Vander, Payne K. A picture is worth a thousand words: The role of survey training materials in stated-preference studies. Patient 2020; 13: 163–173. doi: 10.1007/s40271-019-00391-w.VassCDavisonNJVanderStichele GPayneKA picture is worth a thousand words: The role of survey training materials in stated-preference studies20201316317310.1007/s40271-019-00391-w707582531565784Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Lim SL, Yang JC, Ehrisman J, Havrilesky LJ, Reed SD. Are videos or text better for describing attributes in stated-preference surveys? Patient 2020; 13(4): 401–408. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00416-9.LimSLYangJCEhrismanJHavrileskyLJReedSDAre videos or text better for describing attributes in stated-preference surveys?202013440140810.1007/s40271-020-00416-932239442Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Wang X, Cheng Z. Cross-sectional studies: strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest 2020; 158(1S): S65–S71. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012.WangXChengZCross-sectional studies: strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations20201581SS65S7110.1016/j.chest.2020.03.01232658654Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Veldwijk J, Johansson JV, Donkers B, de Bekker-Grob EW. Mimicking real-life decision making in health: Allowing respondents time to think in a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 2020; 23(7): 945–952. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.014.VeldwijkJJohanssonJVDonkersBde Bekker-GrobEWMimicking real-life decision making in health: Allowing respondents time to think in a discrete choice experiment202023794595210.1016/j.jval.2020.02.01432762997Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Liao Q, Lam WWT, Wong CKH, Lam C, Chen J, Fielding R. The relative effects of determinants on Chinese adults’ decision for influenza vaccination choice: What is the effect of priming? Vaccine 2019; 37(30):4124–4132. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.05.072.LiaoQLamWWTWongCKHLamCChenJFieldingRThe relative effects of determinants on Chinese adults’ decision for influenza vaccination choice: What is the effect of priming?201937304124413210.1016/j.vaccine.2019.05.07231186189Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Infected Blood Inquiry [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/ (accessed 8 September 2021).2021Available from: https://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/ (accessed 8 September 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Smith LE, Sim J, Amlôt R, et al. Side-effect expectations from COVID-19 vaccination: Findings from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey (CoVAccS – wave 2). J Psychosom Res 2021;152: 110679. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110679.SmithLESimJAmlôtRSide-effect expectations from COVID-19 vaccination: Findings from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey (CoVAccS – wave 2)202115211067910.1016/j.jpsychores.2021.110679859530534823113Open DOISearch in Google Scholar