Document is current

Article History

First Online: 4 March 2020

Compliance with Ethical Standards

:

: Marco Boeri and Brett Hauber are employees of RTI Health Solutions, which received funding from Eli Lilly and Company to conduct the analyses that are the subject of this manuscript. Daniel Saure and Elisabeth Riedl are employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Alexander Schacht was employee of Eli Lilly at the time of writing the manuscript and is now an employee of UCB Biosciences.

: Financial support for this study was provided by Eli Lilly and Company. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The following authors are employed by the sponsor: Daniel Saure and Elisabeth Riedl. Alexander Schacht was an employee of Eli Lilly at the time of writing the manuscript and is now employee of UCB Biosciences. Marco Boeri and Brett Hauber are employees of RTI Health Solutions. The initial work from which the manuscript was generated was presented in 2018 at the Promoting Statistical Insight (PSI) conference in Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Saure D, Boeri M, Thorn K, Schacht A. Make conjoint analyses your standard approach understand how patient preferences vary across different subgroups. 2018 PSI Conference; 5 June 2018; Amsterdam). The presentation included initial results which were then used as starting point for this manuscript.

: The research was carried out in compliance with national laws protecting respondents’ personal data and with the Codes of Conduct of the European Society for Opinion and Market Research, the European Pharmaceutical Marketing Research Association, and the British Healthcare Business Intelligence Association. This study was deemed exempt from ethics committee approval in every country where the study was conducted, in line with the codes of conduct of the relevant market research societies. Respondents were recruited among a pool of subjects who had previously agreed to be contacted for market research. At the beginning of the survey, respondents were informed about the general purpose and the objectives of the research, given contact details of a staff member available in case of questions or concerns, and asked to explicitly give consent to participate in the study. The study team was not allowed to contact respondents for purposes other than for answering the survey instrument. In order to protect privacy, providing follow-ups to respondents was also not allowed; however, respondents could contact the study team through the contact received in case of questions of concerns. No clinical data were collected in this study.