ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018
Developing and piloting an instrument to prioritize the worries of patients with acute myeloid leukemia.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05061095 (Understanding What Matters Most to Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Understanding What Matters Most to Patients: Establishing the Validity of a Best-Worst Scaling Survey
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stated-Preference Survey Design and Testing in Health Applications.The patient · 2025Article
- Article
- Development of a Patient-Centered Preference Tool for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2021Article
- Prioritizing the worries of AML patients: Quantifying patient experience using best-worst scaling.Psycho-oncology · 2021Article
- Comparing the Preferences of Patients and the General Public for Treatment Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.The patient · 2021Article
- Patient-Centered Insights on Treatment Decision Making and Living with Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Other Hematologic Cancers.The patient · 2020Article
- Exploring variation in parental worries about HPV vaccination: a latent-class analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2019Article
- Parkinson's Patients' Tolerance for Risk and Willingness to Wait for Potential Benefits of Novel Neurostimulation Devices: A Patient-Centered Threshold Technique Study.MDM policy & practiceArticle
- Developing a Novel Values Elicitation Measure for Clinical Use in Older Adults with Hematologic Malignancies: Values-HM.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a rapidly progressing blood cancer for which new treatments are needed. We sought to promote patient-focused drug development (PFDD) for AML by developing and piloting an instrument to prioritize the worries of patients with AML. PATIENTS AND
methodsAn innovative community-centered approach was used to engage expert and community stakeholders in the development, pretesting, pilot testing, and dissemination of a novel best-worst scaling instrument. Patient worries were identified through individual interviews (n=15) and group calls. The instrument was developed through rigorous pretesting (n=13) and then piloted among patients and caregivers engaged in this study (n=25). Priorities were assessed using best-worst scores (spanning from +1 to -1) representing the relative number of times that items were endorsed as the most and the least worrying. All findings were presented at a PFDD meeting at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that was attended by >80 stakeholders.
resultsThe final instrument included 13 worries spanning issues such as decision making, treatment delivery, physical impacts, and psychosocial effects. Patients and caregivers most prioritized worries about dying from their disease (best minus worst [BW] score=0.73), long-term side effects (BW=0.28), and time in hospital (BW=0.25).
conclusionCommunity-centered approaches are valuable in designing and executing PFDD meetings and associated quantitative surveys to document the experience of patients. Expert and community stakeholders welcomed the opportunity to share their experiences with the FDA and strongly endorsed implementing this survey nationally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.