Clinicians and public health experts make evidence-based decisions for individual patients, patient groups and even whole populations. In addition to the principles of internal and external validity (evidence), patient preferences must also influence decision making. Great Britain, Australia and Germany are currently discussing methods and procedures for valuing patient preferences in regulatory (authorization and pricing) and in health policy decision making. However, many questions remain on how to best balance patient and public preferences with physicians' judgement in healthcare and health policy decision making. For example, how to define evaluation criteria regarding the perceived value from a patient's perspective? How do physicians' fact-based opinions also reflect patients' preferences based on personal values? Can empirically grounded theories explain differences between patients and experts-and, if so, how? This article aims to identify and compare studies that used different preference elicitation methods and to highlight differences between patient and physician preferences. Therefore, studies comparing patient preferences and physician judgements were analysed in a review. This review shows a limited amount of literature analysing and comparing patient and physician preferences for healthcare interventions and outcomes. Moreover, it shows that methodology used to compare preferences is diverse. A total of 46 studies used the following methods-discrete-choice experiments, conjoint analyses, standard gamble, time trade-offs and paired comparisons-to compare patient preferences with doctor judgements. All studies were published between 1985 and 2011. Most studies reveal a disparity between the preferences of actual patients and those of physicians. For most conditions, physicians underestimated the impact of intervention characteristics on patients' decision making. Differentiated perceptions may reflect ineffective communication between the provider and the patient. This in turn may keep physicians from fully appreciating the impact of certain medical conditions on patient preferences. Because differences exist between physicians' judgement and patient preferences, it is important to incorporate the needs and wants of the patient into treatment decisions.

Regulatory decisions are often based on multiple clinical end points, but the perspectives used to judge the relative importance of those end points are predominantly those of expert decision makers rather than of the patient. However, there is a growing awareness that active patient and public participation can improve decision making, increase acceptance of decisions, and improve adherence to treatments. The assessment of risk versus benefit requires not only information on clinical outcomes but also value judgments about which outcomes are important and whether the potential benefits outweigh the harms. There are a number of mechanisms for capturing the input of patients, and regulatory bodies within the European Union are participating in several initiatives. These can include patients directly participating in the regulatory decision-making process or using information derived from patients in empirical studies as part of the evidence considered. One promising method that is being explored is the elicitation of "patient preferences." Preferences, in this context, refer to the individual's evaluation of health outcomes and can be understood as statements regarding the relative desirability of a range of treatment options, treatment characteristics, and health states. Several methods for preference measurement have been proposed, and pilot studies have been undertaken to use patient preference information in regulatory decision making. This article describes how preferences are currently being considered in the benefit-risk assessment context, and shows how different methods of preference elicitation are used to support decision making within the European context.

The results were intended to enable early selection of an individualized pain medication. The results of the study showed that DCE is an appropriate means for the identification of patient preferences when being treated with specific pain medications. Due to the fact that pain perception is subjective in nature, the identification of patients´ preferences will enable therapists to better develop and implement patient-oriented treatment of chronic pain. It is therefore essential to improve the therapists´ understanding of patient preferences in order to make decisions concerning pain treatment. DCE and direct assessment should become valid instruments to elicit treatment preferences in chronic pain.

Introduction:Effective risk adjustment is an aspect that is more and more given weight on the background of competitive health insurance systems and vital healthcare systems.The objective of this review was to obtain an overview of existing models of risk adjustment as well as on crucial weights in risk adjustment. Moreover, the predictive performance of selected methods in international healthcare systems should be analysed.Theory and methods:A comprehensive, systematic literature review on methods of risk adjustment was conducted in terms of an encompassing, interdisciplinary examination of the related disciplines.Results:In general, several distinctions can be made: in terms of risk horizons, in terms of risk factors or in terms of the combination of indicators included. Within these, another differentiation by three levels seems reasonable: methods based on mortality risks, methods based on morbidity risks as well as those based on information on (self-reported) health status.Conclusions and discussion:After the final examination of different methods of risk adjustment it was shown that the methodology used to adjust risks varies. The models differ greatly in terms of their included morbidity indicators. The findings of this review can be used in the evaluation of integrated healthcare delivery systems and can be integrated into quality- and patient-oriented reimbursement of care providers in the design of healthcare contracts.

To assess patient preferences for benefits and risks in hemophilia A treatment.Methods: A systematic literature search and pretest interviews were conducted to determine the most patient-relevant endpoints in terms of effects, risks, and administration of hemophilia A treatments. A Best-Worst Scaling (BWS; Case 3 or multiprofile case) approach was applied in a structured questionnaire. Patients were surveyed by interviewers in a computer-assisted personal interview. Treatments in the choice scenarios comprised bleeding frequency per year, application type, risk of thromboembolic event risk, and inhibitor development. Each respondent answered 13 choice tasks, including 1 dominant task, comparing 3 treatment profiles. Data were analyzed using a mixed logit model (random-parameters logit).Results: Data from 57 patients were used. The attributes "bleeding frequency per year" and "inhibitor development" had the greatest impact on respondents' choice decisions. Patients disliked being at risk of inhibitor development more than being at risk of thromboembolic events. The type of application, whether intravenous or subcutaneous, was of less importance for patients. There was a significant preference variation for all attributes.Conclusions: Patients value low frequency of bleeding per year and low risk of development of inhibitors the most. An increase of risk and frequency would significantly decrease the impact on choice decisions. The type of application does not seem to influence the choice decision very much compared with the other attributes. Regarding preference heterogeneity, further analysis is needed to identify subgroups among patients and their characteristics. This may help to adapt individually patienttailored treatment alternatives for hemophilia A patients.