Table 1.

Study characteristics and findings of stated-preference studies eliciting patients’ preferences for osteoporosis medications

First author	Country	Publication year	Method	Sample size	Funding	Number of attributes (or medications)	Main findings
Importance of medication attributes
Weiss [12]	USA	2006	Survey (ranking and rating)	3368	Merck & Co.	8	Order of importance: effectiveness, side effects, interactions, out-of-pockets costs, time on market, dosing frequency, formulation, dosing frequency
Duarte [13]	France, Germany, Mexico, Spain and UK	2007	Survey (ranking and rating)	3000	NR	7	Order of importance: effectiveness, side effects, out-of-pocket costs, dosing frequency, formulation, time on market, dosing procedure
Hiligsmann [14•]	Belgium and Netherlands	2013	Nominal group technique	26	Amgen	12	Order of importance: effectiveness, side effects, frequency of administration and mode of administration, out-of-pocket cost, sequential therapy, place of administration, time on market, branded/generic, mono or combination, mode of action, cost for society
Silverman [15•]	USA	2013	MaxDiff ranking	367	Novartis Pharmaceuticals	4	Order of importance: efficacy, safety, cost and convenience
Conjoint analyses
Fraenkel [18]	USA	2006	ACA	212	NR	4	Patients’ treatment preferences were strongly influenced by route of administration. Patients’ preferred treatment option, across all simulations, was bisphosphonates
de Bekker-Grob [17]	Netherlands	2008	DCE	120	Public	5	All attributes (effectiveness, side effects (nausea), total treatment duration, route of drug administration, and out-of-pocket costs) were important Patients preferred a tablet once a month than tablet once a week or injection once a month or every 4 months
Darba [16]	Spain	2011	DCE	166	NR	3	All attributes (route of administration, place of administration and costs) were important Patients preferred subcutaneous injection one per day rather than intravenous injection once per year
Hiligsmann [19••]	Belgium	2014	DCE	257	Amgen	5	All attributes (effectiveness, side effects, mode and frequency of administration and costs) were important Patients preferred either an oral monthly tablet or 6-month subcutaneous injection above weekly oral tablets, 3-month subcutaneous, 3-month intravenous or yearly intravenous injections Patients disliked being at risk of gastrointestinal disorders more than being at risk of skin reactions and flu-like symptoms
Structured interviews
Gold [23]	USA	2006	617 women currently using bisphosphonates	Interviews	Alliance for Better Bone Health	Two medications: weekly vs. monthly bisphosphonate therapy	More patients preferred weekly therapy over monthly therapy (82 vs. 18 %), after receiving information about fracture efficacy differences
Keen [22]	UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy	2006	1253 currently taking a weekly bisphosphonate or had no current or prior history of bisphosphonate therapy	Interviews	NR	Two medications: weekly vs. monthly bisphosphonate therapy	82 % preferred weekly bisphosphonate and 18 % monthly therapy Efficacy was the most commonly cited reason for this preference Overall, 69 % of patients intended to ‘definitely/probably’ use the weekly therapy compared with 34 % of women who rated the monthly therapy similarly

ACA adaptive conjoint analysis, DCE discrete choice experiment