SynthesisThe patient2026
Understanding Patient Preferences for Medication Process Attributes: A Systematic Literature Review.
Synthesis in The patient, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivePatient preference studies have been used to identify aspects of medical products that matter to patients. This paper sought to summarise patient preferences for treatment processes (mode and frequency).
methodsSearch strategies based on existing validated search filters were applied to databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, EconLit and Health Preference Research. Additional references were obtained by searching the reference lists of systematic reviews. English-language peer-reviewed studies involving patients that quantitatively elicited preferences and compared different modes or frequencies were eligible. Data extraction was performed by two reviewers using Covidence. As a heuristic, we considered if process attributes were ranked in the top two attributes. The Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance (PREFS) checklist (0-5, higher = better) was used to evaluate study quality.
resultsData were extracted from 164 articles of an identified 16,357 (12,872 screened by title/abstract and 795 full text screened). Mean study quality was 3.48 on PREFS (standard deviation = 0.70), but patient engagement was rarely reported in studies (n = 20, 12.2%). Most studies included both mode and frequency attributes, either presented as a combined attribute (n = 65, 39.6%) or as individual separate attributes (n = 43, 26.2%). Regardless of how attributes were presented, mode/frequency attributes were infrequently in the top two attributes. In terms of level preference, when an oral mode was included as a level, the oral level was the most preferred level in nearly all studies. Patients with less severe disease or who were less experienced with treatment tended to prefer oral modes or have preferences against injection.
conclusionsMode/frequency attributes are not necessarily the most important attributes, but patients, particularly those with less treatment experience or more mild disease, may have strong preferences. Although PREFS scores indicated high study quality, future studies would benefit from deeper patient engagement. In line with ISPOR's definition, patient engagement should extend beyond participation to meaningful involvement across the research lifecycle, including opportunities for co-authorship and partnership in study design, conduct and dissemination.
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.