Preferences for cardiovascular and pulmonary rehabilitation care: A discrete choice experiment among patients in Lebanon.

OBJECTIVE: Patient preferences are important in designing optimal rehabilitation care. The aim of this study is to assess preferences for rehabilitation care among two groups of respondents. DESIGN: An online discrete choice experiment survey was carried out. SETTING: We use data for Lebanon, a country where rehabilitation care is still underdeveloped. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who have undergone or are currently undergoing rehabilitation treatment (users) and those who have not (yet) used rehabilitation care (non-users). INTERVENTION: Patients were asked to repeatedly choose between two hypothetical rehabilitation care packages with seven different attributes: attitude of the staff, travel time to clinic, out-of-pocket costs, medical equipment, rehabilitation plan, additional lifestyle education session, and support during rehabilitation care. MAIN MEASURES: Preference heterogeneity among patients with different characteristics was investigated using random effect binary logistic regression (software package Stata 15). RESULTS: In total, 126 respondents completed the survey. The most preferred attribute was an informal and friendly attitude of the staff followed by modern medical equipment, additional lifestyle education session via eHealth, and support during the rehabilitation program via phone call or SMS. Respondents were less in favor of going to the rehabilitation clinic and paying additional out-of-pocket costs for the rehabilitation treatment. This rank order was similar between users and non-users. CONCLUSION: Preferences of patients regarding the type of program chosen (eHealth or at clinical-based) need to be included in future rehabilitation programs. Improving patient experience with rehabilitation programs by giving the best care based on a patient-centered approach is essential.

Public Preferences for Introducing a COVID-19 Certificate: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Here we investigate public preferences for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) certificates in the Netherlands, and whether these preferences differ between subgroups in the population. METHODS: A survey including a discrete choice experiment was administered to 1500 members of the adult population of the Netherlands. Each participant was asked to choose between hypothetical COVID-19 certificates that differed in seven attributes: the starting date, and whether the certificate allowed gathering with multiple people, shopping without appointment, visiting bars and restaurants, visiting cinemas and theatres, attending events, and practising indoor sports. Latent class models (LCMs) were used to determine the attribute relative importance and predicted acceptance rate of hypothetical certificates. RESULTS: Three classes of preference patterns were identified in the LCM. One class a priori opposed a certificate (only two attributes influencing preferences), another class was relatively neutral and included all attributes in their decision making, and the final class was positive towards a certificate. Respondents aged > 65 years and those who plan to get vaccinated were more likely to belong to the latter two classes. Being allowed to shop without appointment and to visit bars and restaurants was most important to all respondents, increasing predicted acceptance rate by 12 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: Preferences for introduction of a COVID-19 certificate are mixed. A certificate that allows for shopping without appointment and visiting bars and restaurants is likely to increase acceptance. The support of younger citizens and those who plan to get vaccinated seems most sensitive to the specific freedoms granted by a COVID-19 certificate.

Telerheumatology: before, during, and after a global pandemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In early 2020, the COVID-19 global pandemic shifted most healthcare to remote delivery methods to protect patients, clinicians, and hospital staff. Such remote care delivery methods include the use of telehealth technologies including clinical video telehealth or telephone visits. Prior to this, research on the acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy of telehealth applied to rheumatology, or telerheumatology, has been limited. RECENT FINDINGS: Telerheumatology visits were found to be noninferior to in-person visits and are often more time and cost effective for patients. Clinicians and patients both noted the lack of a physical exam in telehealth visits and patients missed the opportunity to have lab work done or other diagnostic tests they are afforded with in-person visits. Overall, patients and clinicians had positive attitudes toward the use of telerheumatology and agreed on its usefulness, even beyond the pandemic. SUMMARY: Although telerheumatology has the potential to expand the reach of rheumatology practice, some of the most vulnerable patients still lack the most basic resources required for a telehealth visit. As the literature on telerheumatology continues to expand, attention should be paid to health equity, the digital divide, as well as patient preferences in order to foster true shared decision-making over telehealth.

Consumer preferences for telehealth in Australia: A discrete choice experiment.

This study aims to elicit consumer preferences regarding telehealth and face-to-face consultations in Australia. It used a discrete choice experiment, presenting participants with a series of hypothetical choices, and based on their responses, infer what is most important to them. Data were analysed using conditional logit regression and latent class analysis. A total of 1,025 participants completed the survey, considering four different clinical scenarios. Face-to-face contacts were, on average, preferred to either telephone or video services. However, telehealth was identified as an attractive option if it prevents significant travel and can be conducted with a familiar doctor. Participants were strongly driven by cost, particularly greater than $30. Telehealth was least preferred for situations involving a new and unknown physical symptom, and relatively more preferred for surgical follow-up. The latent class analysis demonstrates only 15.9% of participants appeared unwilling to consider telehealth. The findings of this study suggest that meeting the needs of the Australian population requires a blended approach to service delivery, with telehealth being valued in a range of clinical scenarios. Price sensitivity was evident, therefore if telehealth services can be delivered with lower patient cost, then they are likely to be attractive.

Insight to urology patients' preferences regarding telemedicine.

INTRODUCTION: Due to COVID-19, telemedicine has become a common method of healthcare delivery. Our goal was to evaluate urology patients' satisfaction with telemedicine, examine patient preferences, and identify opportunities for improvement in readiness, access, and quality of care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 285 adult urology patients who completed at least one telemedicine visit from September to December 2020 were eligible. A paper survey was disseminated by postal mail with an option to complete electronically. Those who returned completed surveys received a $15 gift card. RESULTS: Seventy-six subjects completed the survey (response rate of 27%). The most common age bracket of the respondents was 70-79 years (37%). Readiness - To prepare, many subjects (49%) read the provided instructions. Most (91%) thought they were adequately prepared. A majority (82%) were satisfied with the ease of set up. Access - Types of visits included established patients (71%), new patient visits (17%), and postoperative visits (9%). Most respondents (84%) did not have difficulty accessing the visit. Quality of care - All respondents were satisfied with the length of visit, and 90% were satisfied with the overall experience. Patient preferences - Compared to office visits, most patients found telemedicine equal or superior in several areas. Preference to utilize telemedicine in the future was dependent on the nature of the complaint, length of their drive and their schedule. CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported high levels of satisfaction and a willingness to engage with telemedicine visits. To minimize future technical disruptions, we offer mock telehealth visits before their scheduled appointment and improved our clinicians' work flow.

Patient preferences and current practice for adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis: POPSTER mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are a mainstay of the treatment of moderately severe relapses of ulcerative colitis, yet almost 50% of patients do not respond fully to these and risk prolonged steroid use and side effects. There is a lack of clarity about the definitions of steroid resistance, the optimum choice of treatment, and patient and health-care professional treatment preferences. OBJECTIVES: The overall aim of this research was to understand how steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis is managed in adult secondary care and how current practice compares with patient and health-care professional preferences. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study, including an online survey, qualitative interviews and discrete choice experiments. SETTING: NHS inflammatory bowel disease services in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ulcerative colitis and health-care professionals treating inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: We carried out a survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), qualitative interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), discrete choice experiments with health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115), and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals showed that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab) are the most frequently offered drugs across most steroid-resistant (and steroid-dependent) patient scenarios, but they are less frequently offered to thiopurine-naive patients. Patient interviews identified several factors influencing their treatment choices, including effectiveness of treatment, recommendations from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Over time, depending on the severity and duration of symptoms and, crucially, as medical treatment options become exhausted, patients are willing to try alternative treatments and, eventually, to undergo surgery. The discrete choice experiments found that the probability of remission and of side effects strongly influences the treatment choices of both patients and health-care professionals. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. The treatments ranked most positively by patients were infliximab and tofacitinib (each preferred by 38% of patients), and the predicted probability of uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab (62%). LIMITATIONS: The survey and the discrete choice experiments with patients and health-care professionals are limited by their relatively small sample sizes. The qualitative studies are subject to selection bias. The timing of the different substudies, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, is a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified factors influencing treatment decisions for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis and the characteristics to consider when choosing treatments to evaluate in future randomised controlled trials. The findings may be used to improve discussions between patients and health-care professionals when they review treatment options for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis. FUTURE WORK: This research highlights the need for consensus work to establish an agreed definition of steroid resistance in ulcerative colitis and a greater understanding of the optimal use of tofacitinib and surgery for this patient group. A randomised controlled trial comparing infliximab with tofacitinib is also recommended. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Steroids are one of the main treatments for ulcerative colitis; however, steroids work well for only about 50% of people who take them. There are many other treatments that can be given when steroids do not work, but evidence is limited about how these treatments are best used. To carry out better research about the best treatment options and to improve clinical practice in the future, this study aimed to find out how adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis are managed in hospital and why patients and health-care professionals prefer different treatments. The study combined various methods of research, including an online survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), a survey of health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115) to ask them about treatment preferences, and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals found that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that the most frequently offered drugs are anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab). Patient interviews found that several factors influenced treatment choices, including effectiveness of treament, guidance from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Patients were willing to try alternative treatments and surgery over time. The survey found that a higher level of remission and a lower chance of side effects strongly influenced treatment choices. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. Infliximab and tofacitinib were ranked most positively by patients, and the predicted uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab. The results of this study help improve understanding of why people choose certain treatments, improve decision-making in partnership and inform the design of future research.

Stability of Stated Preferences: Vaccine Priority Setting before and during the First COVID-19 Lockdown.

BACKGROUND: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are frequently used to study preferences and quantify tradeoffs in decision making. It is important to understand how stable their results are. OBJECTIVE: To investigate to what extent an extreme change in context, the COVID-19 pandemic, affected preferences for vaccine priority setting, as observed in an earlier DCE. METHODS: We replicated a DCE in which participants had to prioritize vaccination programs for public funding. The initial DCE was executed in Flanders (Belgium) right before the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (December 2019, N = 1,636). The replicated DCE was executed 6 months later when the population was in lockdown (April 2020, N = 1,127). A total of 612 respondents participated in both waves of the DCE. We used panel mixed logit models to quantify attribute and level importance and compared utility estimates for consistency. RESULTS: The number of vaccine-preventable deaths became less important during the pandemic than before, whereas the influential attributes, the vaccine's contribution to disease eradication and certainty about vaccine effectiveness became even more important. Respondents attached equal importance to the number of patients with transient or permanent morbidity, to the disease's economic impact as well as to its equity profile. CONCLUSION: Different preferences for vaccine priority setting were observed during the first COVID-19 lockdown as compared with before, although these differences were, given the extreme nature of the changing circumstances, relatively small. HIGHLIGHTS: We replicated a discrete choice experiment (DCE) about vaccine priority setting during the first COVID-19 lockdown and compared results with those from the original setting.The major attributes, contribution to disease eradication, and scientific certainty about vaccine effectiveness became even more important than they already were, whereas avoidable mortality became less important.Respondents attached equal importance to the number of patients with transient or permanent morbidity, to the disease's economic impact as well as to its equity profile.An extreme change in directly related context to the choice assignment led to changes in stated preferences, although these changes were relatively small, given the extreme change in context.Priorities in the second DCE were even less aligned with cost-effectiveness analysis than those observed initially.

Psoriasis patient preferences for the use of biologics during the coronavirus era.

Understanding patient preferences concerning the use of biologics for psoriasis treatment can support proper treatment selection to satisfy their needs. In Japan, limited studies have reported psoriasis patients' preferences for the use of biologics, and many of those focused on the improvement of skin symptoms. The present study was conducted as a web-based questionnaire survey using the discrete choice experiment approach to investigate the preferences of psoriasis patients for the use of biologics, as well as to describe social and clinical factors that influence these preferences. The following attributes were selected for the discrete choice experiment: efficacy at 1 year, risk of serious infections requiring hospitalization, incidence of injection site reactions, administration route and visits, co-payment, indications, and efficacy on skin symptoms and other manifestations (the last two have not been evaluated in previous studies). Data were collected from October 4 to October 8, 2021. An analysis of data from 357 psoriasis patients indicated that the most preferred attributes for biologics selection were administration route and visits, followed by the risk of serious infections requiring hospitalization. Some differences were observed among specific subgroups. This study demonstrated that patients with psoriasis prefer biologics with a less frequent administration route and visit schedule and a lower risk of serious infections requiring hospitalization, which contrasts with the results obtained in previous studies where the highest importance was placed on drug effectiveness. These results may reflect the personal and social impact of the coronavirus disease outbreak at the time of the survey. The results of this study might help physicians properly select biologics that satisfy psoriasis patients' needs, leading to better treatment adherence.

The Preferences of Transgender and Nonbinary People for Virtual Health Care After the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Virtual health care use has dramatically increased in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, raising the question of its potential role after the pandemic. For transgender (trans) and nonbinary (TNB) people, virtual care is promising because it may expand access to appropriate health care providers. However, emerging research indicates potential disparities in virtual care access related to sociodemographic, health, and social factors. There is a paucity of research on the factors affecting patient preferences for virtual versus in-person care, particularly in TNB communities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify the sociodemographic, health, and social factors associated with postpandemic virtual care preferences in TNB communities. METHODS: The 2020 Trans PULSE Canada COVID survey examined the health, social, and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic among 820 TNB participants who previously completed the prepandemic 2019 Trans PULSE Canada survey (n=2783). Data were weighted to the demographics of the 2019 sample. Chi-square tests were used to compare postpandemic preferences for virtual versus in-person care across sociodemographic, health, and social characteristics. Participants provided open-text responses explaining their preferences, which were used to contextualize quantitative findings. RESULTS: Among 812 participants who indicated whether they would prefer virtual or in-person care after the pandemic, a weighted 32.7% (n=275) would prefer virtual care and 67.3% (n=537) would prefer in-person care. Preference for in-person over virtual care was associated with being in the 14-19 (49/56, weighted 85.0%), 50-64 (51/62, weighted 80.0%), and ≥65 (9/10, weighted 90.7%) age groups (χ25=19.0; P=.002). Preference for virtual over in-person care was associated with having a chronic health condition (125/317, weighted 37.7% versus 150/495, weighted 29.9%; χ21=4.7; P=.03) and having probable anxiety (229/645, weighted 34.7% versus 46/167, weighted 25.7%; χ21=4.3; P=.04). Among participants with romantic partners, preferences varied based on the partner's level of support for gender identity or expression (χ23=13.3; P=.004). Participants with moderately supportive partners were more likely than participants with very supportive partners to prefer in-person care (36/43, weighted 85.1% versus 275/445, weighted 62.3%). Care preferences did not vary significantly based on the indicators of socioeconomic status. Open-text responses showed that multiple factors often interacted to influence participant preferences, and that some factors, such as having a chronic condition, simultaneously led some participants to prefer virtual care and others to prefer in-person care. CONCLUSIONS: TNB people may have differential interest in virtual care based on factors including age, chronic and mental health conditions, and gender-unsupportive home environments. Future research examining virtual care preferences would benefit from mixed methods intersectional approaches across these factors, to explore complexity in the barriers and facilitators of virtual care access and quality. These observed differences support flexibility with options to choose between in-person and virtual health care to meet TNB patients' specific health needs.

The Relative Importance of Vulnerability and Efficiency in COVID-19 Contact Tracing Programmes: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Objectives: This study aims to assess the trade-offs between vulnerability and efficiency attributes of contact tracing programmes based on preferences of COVID-19 contact tracing practitioners, researchers and other relevant stakeholders at the global level. Methods: We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE). Respondents were recruited globally to explore preferences according to country income level and the prevailing epidemiology of COVID-19 in the local setting. The DCE attributes represented efficiency (timeliness, completeness, number of contacts), vulnerability (vulnerable population), cooperation and privacy. A mixed-logit model and latent class analysis were used. Results: The number of respondents was 181. Timeliness was the most important attribute regardless of country income level and COVID-19 epidemiological condition. Vulnerability of contacts was the second most important attribute for low-to-lower-middle-income countries and third for upper-middle-to-high income countries. When normalised against conditional relative importance of timeliness, conditional relative importance of vulnerability ranged from 0.38 to 0.42. Conclusion: Vulnerability and efficiency criteria were both considered to be important attributes of contact tracing programmes. However, the relative values placed on these criteria varied significantly between epidemiological and economic context.

Impact of Telemedicine on Prenatal Counseling at a Tertiary Fetal Center: A Mixed Methods Study.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 spurred an unprecedented transition from in-person to telemedicine visits in March 2020 at our institution for all prenatal counseling sessions. This study aims to explore differences in demographics of expectant mothers evaluated pre- and post-telemedicine implementation and to explore the patient experience with telemedicine. METHODS: A mixed methods study was completed for mothers with a pregnancy complicated by a fetal surgical anomaly who visited a large tertiary fetal center. Using medical records as quantitative data, patient information was collected for all prenatal visits from 3/2019 to 3/2021. The sample was grouped into pre- and post-telemedicine implementation (based on transition date of 3/2020). Univariate analysis was used to compare demographics between the study groups. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. Eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted from 8/2021 to 12/2021 to explore patients' experiences. Line-by-line coding and thematic analysis was performed to develop emerging themes. RESULTS: 292 pregnancies were evaluated from 3/2019 to 3/2021 (pre-telemedicine 123, post-telemedicine 169). There was no significant difference in self-reported race (P = 0.28), ethnicity (P = 0.46), or primary language (P = 0.98). In qualitative interviews, patients reported advantages to telemedicine, including the convenience of the modality with the option to conduct their session in familiar settings (e.g., home) and avoid stressors (e.g., travel to the medical center and finding childcare). Some women reported difficulties establishing a physician-patient connection and a preference for in-person consultations. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in patient demographics at our fetal center in the year leading up to, and the time following, a significant transition to telemedicine. However, patients had unique perspectives on the advantages and disadvantages of the telemedicine experience. To ensure patient centered care, these findings suggest patient preference should be considered when scheduling outpatient surgical counseling and visits.

Vaccine preferences driving vaccine-decision making of different target groups: a systematic review of choice-based experiments.

BACKGROUND: Choice-based experiments have been increasingly used to elicit preferences for vaccines and vaccination programs. This study aims to systematically identify and examine choice-based experiments assessing (differences in) vaccine preferences of vaccinees, representatives and health advisors. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched on choice-based conjoint analysis studies or discrete choice experiments capturing vaccine preferences of children, adolescents, parents, adults and healthcare professionals for attributes of vaccines or vaccine settings up to September 2020. Data was extracted using a standardized form covering all important aspects of choice experiments. A quality assessment was used to assess the validity of studies. Attributes were categorized into outcome, process, cost and other. The importance of attributes was assessed by the frequency of reporting and statistical significance. Results were compared between high-quality studies and lower-quality studies. RESULTS: A total of 42 studies were included, with the majority conducted in high-income countries after 2010 (resp. n = 34 and n = 37). Preferences of representatives were studied in nearly half of the studies (47.6%), followed by vaccinees (35.7%) and health advisors (9.5%). Sixteen high-quality studies passed the quality assessment. Outcome- and cost- related attributes such as vaccine effectiveness, vaccine risk, cost and protection duration were most often statistically significant across both target groups, with vaccine effectiveness being the most important. Risks associated with vaccination, such as side effects, were more often statistically significant in studies targeting vaccinees, while cost-related attributes were more often statistically significant in studies of representatives. Process-related attributes such as vaccine accessibility and time were least important across both target groups. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review in which vaccine preferences of different target groups were assessed and compared. The same attributes were most important for vaccine decisions of vaccinees and representatives, with only minor differences in level of evidence for vaccine risk and cost. Future research on vaccine preferences of health advisors and/or among target groups in low-resource settings would give insight into the generalizability of current findings.

Development of a Quantitative Instrument to Elicit Patient Preferences for Person-Centered Dementia Care Stage 1: A Formative Qualitative Study to Identify Patient Relevant Criteria for Experimental Design of an Analytic Hierarchy Process.

Background: Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. This formative qualitative study aimed to identify (sub)criteria of PCC for the design of a quantitative, choice-based instrument to elicit patient preferences for person-centered dementia care. Method: Interviews were conducted with n = 2 dementia care managers, n = 10 People living with Dementia (PlwD), and n = 3 caregivers (CGs), which followed a semi-structured interview guide including a card game with PCC criteria identified from the literature. Criteria cards were shown to explore the PlwD's conception. PlwD were asked to rank the cards to identify patient-relevant criteria of PCC. Audios were verbatim-transcribed and analyzed with qualitative content analysis. Card game results were coded on a 10-point-scale, and sums and means for criteria were calculated. Results: Six criteria with two sub-criteria emerged from the analysis; social relationships (indirect contact, direct contact), cognitive training (passive, active), organization of care (decentralized structures and no shared decision making, centralized structures and shared decision making), assistance with daily activities (professional, family member), characteristics of care professionals (empathy, education and work experience) and physical activities (alone, group). Dementia-sensitive wording and balance between comprehensibility vs. completeness of the (sub)criteria emerged as additional themes. Conclusions: Our formative study provides initial data about patient-relevant criteria of PCC to design a quantitative patient preference instrument. Future research may want to consider the balance between (sub)criteria comprehensibility vs. completeness.

Patient consent preferences on sharing personal health information during the COVID-19 pandemic: "the more informed we are, the more likely we are to help".

BACKGROUND: Rapid ethical access to personal health information (PHI) to support research is extremely important during pandemics, yet little is known regarding patient preferences for consent during such crises. This follow-up study sought to ascertain whether there were differences in consent preferences between pre-pandemic times compared to during Wave 1 of the COVID-19 global pandemic, and to better understand the reasons behind these preferences. METHODS: A total of 183 patients in the pandemic cohort completed the survey via email, and responses were compared to the distinct pre-pandemic cohort (n = 222); all were patients of a large Canadian cancer center. The survey covered (a) broad versus study-specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out contact approach; (c) levels of comfort sharing with different recipients; (d) perceptions of commercialization; and (e) options to track use of information and be notified of results. Four focus groups (n = 12) were subsequently conducted to elucidate reasons motivating dominant preferences. RESULTS: Patients in the pandemic cohort were significantly more comfortable with sharing all information and biological samples (90% vs. 79%, p = 0.009), sharing information with the health care institution (97% vs. 83%, p < 0.001), sharing information with researchers at other hospitals (85% vs. 70%, p < 0.001), sharing PHI provincially (69% vs. 53%, p < 0.002), nationally (65% vs. 53%, p = 0.022) and internationally (48% vs. 39%, p = 0.024) compared to the pre-pandemic cohort. Discomfort with sharing information with commercial companies remained unchanged between the two cohorts (50% vs. 51% uncomfortable, p = 0.58). Significantly more pandemic cohort patients expressed a wish to track use of PHI (75% vs. 61%, p = 0.007), and to be notified of results (83% vs. 70%, p = 0.012). Thematic analysis uncovered that transparency was strongly desired on outside PHI use, particularly when commercialization was involved. CONCLUSIONS: In pandemic times, patients were more comfortable sharing information with all parties, except with commercial entities, where levels of discomfort (~ 50%) remained unchanged. Focus groups identified that the ability to track and receive results of studies using one's PHI is an important way to reduce discomfort and increase trust. These findings meaningfully inform wider discussions on the use of personal health information for research during global crises.

Patient preference for virtual versus in-person visits in neuromuscular clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: It is unknown if patients with neuromuscular diseases prefer in-person or virtual telemedicine visits. We studied patient opinions and preference on virtual versus in-person visits, and the factors influencing such preferences. METHODS: Telephone surveys, consisting of 11 questions, of patients from 10 neuromuscular centers were completed. RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty surveys were completed. Twenty-six percent of respondents preferred virtual visits, while 50% preferred in-person visits. Sixty-four percent reported physical interaction as "very important." For receiving a new diagnosis, 55% preferred in-person vs 35% reporting no preference. Forty percent were concerned about a lack of physical examination vs 20% who were concerned about evaluating vital signs. Eighty four percent reported virtual visits were sufficiently private. Sixty eight percent did not consider expenses a factor in their preference. Although 92% were comfortable with virtual communication technology, 55% preferred video communications, and 19% preferred phone calls. Visit preference was not significantly associated with gender, diagnosis, disease severity, or symptom management. Patients who were concerned about a lack of physical exam or assessment of vitals had significantly higher odds of selecting in-person visits than no preference. DISCUSSION: Although neither technology, privacy, nor finance burdened patients in our study, more patients preferred in-person visits than virtual visits and 40% were concerned about a lack of physical examination. Interactions that occur with in-person encounters had high importance for patients, reflecting differences in the perception of the patient-physician relationship between virtual and in-person visits.

Personality Effects on Chinese Public Preference for the COVID-19 Vaccination: Discrete Choice Experiment and Latent Profile Analysis Study.

Objective: This study aims to investigate the differences in public vaccination preference for the COVID-19 vaccine with different personality characteristics. Methods: Based on the Big Five Personality Inventory (BFI-10), a total of 1200 respondents were categorized by personality characteristics using Latent Profile Analysis (LPA). The preference of members the public with different personality characteristics for COVID-19 vaccination was investigated based on a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Results: All respondents were divided into three groups, named the General and Stable type (79.67%), Conscientious and Agreeable type (9.5%), and Open and Extroverted type (10.83%). For the percentage importance of vaccine attributes, both the General and Stable type and Conscientious and Agreeable type respondents considered cost to be the most important (41.93% and 34.95% respectively). However, the Open and Extroverted type respondents considered efficacy as the most important (31.05%). In our conditional logit model (CLOGIT), for vaccine adverse effects, the General and Stable type and Conscientious and Agreeable type respondents preferred "very mild", while the Open and Extroverted type preferred "mild" (OR:1.108, 95%CI 0.977-1.256). The Open and Extroverted type had a higher willingness to pay (WTP) for the most preferred vaccine level compared to the other types. Conclusions: The Open and Extroverted respondents have the highest willingness to vaccinate. The General and Stable type and Conscientious and Agreeable respondents think that the cost of the vaccine is the most important attribute, and prefer the mildest side effects. The Open and Extroverted type think that vaccine efficacy is the most important attribute, prefer "mild" side effects, and have higher willingness to pay for their favorite vaccine level.

Acceptability of, and preferences for, remote consulting during COVID-19 among older patients with two common long-term musculoskeletal conditions: findings from three qualitative studies and recommendations for practice.

BACKGROUND: Guidance for choosing face-to-face vs remote consultations (RCs) encourages clinicians to consider patient preferences, however, little is known about acceptability of, and preferences for RCs, particularly amongst patients with musculoskeletal conditions. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of, and preferences for, RC among patients with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Three UK qualitative studies, exploring patient experiences of accessing and receiving healthcare, undertaken during the pandemic, with people with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Study team members agreed a consistent approach to conduct rapid deductive analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) on transcripts from each data set relating to RC, facilitated by group meetings to discuss interpretations. Findings from the three studies were pooled. RESULTS: Findings from 1 focus group and 64 interviews with 35 people were included in the analysis. Participants' attitudes to RC, views on fairness (ethicality) and sense-making (intervention coherence) varied according to their needs within the consultation and views of the pandemic. Some participants valued the reduced burden associated with RC, while others highly valued non-verbal communication and physical examination associated with face-to-face consults (opportunity costs). Some participants described low confidence (self-efficacy) in being able to communicate in RCs and others perceived RCs as ineffective, in part due to suboptimal communication. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptability of, and preferences for RC appear to be influenced by societal, healthcare provider and personal factors and in this study, were not condition-dependant. Remote care by default has the potential to exacerbate health inequalities and needs nuanced implementation.

Patient Preferences Regarding Virtual Visits in Cutaneous Surgery in the Era of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an increasing shift toward the utilization of telehealth services. There are limited data on patient preferences for these services in dermatologic surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient preferences regarding telehealth in dermatologic surgery for pre- and postsurgical care. METHODS: A survey was administered to patients in an academic dermatology practice. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-four patients participated. An in-person presurgical consultation was preferred by 62.1%, and a postsurgical in-person visit was preferred by 67.7%. The most commonly cited reason was desire for physical interaction with their surgeon. For each 10-year increase in age, there was a 1.26-fold and 1.12-fold increase in preference for in-person consultation and follow-up, respectively. Eighty-seven percent felt safe during office visit, and 41% reported no anxiety regarding fear of contracting COVID-19. The proportion of patients preferring in-person pre- or postsurgical visits was similar regardless of sex, presence of an immunocompromising condition, prior dermatologic surgery, anxiety level for contracting COVID-19, and perceived level of office safety. CONCLUSION: A majority of patients prefer in-person visits for pre- and postsurgical care. Older patients have a greater preference for in-person care. Anxiety level regarding COVID-19 and perceived level of office safety were not related to preference for in-person visits.