Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,788 studies31 sourcesUpdated 44 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism

Preferences for Obesity Medications Among People With Overweight or Obesity in the United States: A Discrete‐Choice Experiment (OPTIC)

  • Jaime P. Almandoz1
  • Beverly G. Tchang2
  • Kelley Myers3
  • Andrea Traina4
  • Jigish Bhavsar4
  • Victoria Divino4
  • Cannon Kent3
  • Sara Tadesse Bell4
4 affiliations
  1. 1Department of Internal Medicine University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas Texas USA
  2. 2Department of Clinical Medicine Weill Cornell Medicine New York New York USA
  3. 3RTI Health Solutions Durham North Carolina USA
  4. 4Novo Nordisk Inc Plainsboro New Jersey USA
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the relative importance of attributes driving obesity medication (OM) choice and preferences among individuals with overweight or obesity.

Materials and Methods: US adults with obesity or overweight and ≥ 1 obesity‐related complication completed an online survey including a discrete‐choice experiment (DCE) in October–November 2025. In the DCE, participants chose between 2 hypothetical, experimentally designed OM profiles with attributes/levels related to efficacy, cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction, side effects, administration (route/frequency), and dosing instruction requirements. In a fixed‐choice comparison, participants chose between 2 predefined oral OM profiles. Relative preference weights for the DCE attribute levels were estimated using a random‐parameters logit model to estimate attribute importance, tradeoffs, and predicted treatment choice.

Results: Among 800 participants (400 OM‐naïve/400 OM‐experienced, 400 injection‐naïve/400 injection‐experienced), the most important attributes were route of administration, average weight‐loss percentage, CV risk reduction, and the proportion of people achieving ≥ 20% weight loss. Dosing instructions had the lowest relative importance. There was a preference for 1 OM profile (Treatment A—a hypothetical oral semaglutide‐like profile) over the alternative OM profile (Treatment B—a hypothetical orforglipron‐like profile), according to the responses from the DCE (84.2% vs. 15.8%) and the fixed‐choice question (90.0% vs. 10.0%). Only 23.4% indicated that taking an OM treatment on an empty stomach and waiting 30 min to eat would be disruptive to their lives. Most (73.3%) OM‐naïve participants were open to taking an oral OM.

Conclusions: Individuals with overweight or obesity prioritise weight‐loss efficacy, CV risk reduction, and oral administration in OM treatment decisions; dosing instruction requirements were of low importance.

Related

  1. An information ecology approach to preferences for online medical consultation platforms in China: a discrete choice experiment
    Li Sun, Dakun Xu
    Frontiers in Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Epidemiology & public healthCrossref
  2. Physician admission preferences under the Diagnosis-Intervention Packet payment system: a discrete choice experiment in a Chinese tertiary hospital
    Yuanming Song, Siyue Zheng, Mingkai Zhao +5
    Frontiers in Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textEpidemiology & public healthCrossref
  3. Developing and piloting a discrete choice experiment to assess stakeholder preferences for community-based exercise programmes after stroke
    J. Smith, P. Nagy, C. Holland +2
    medRxivPreprintCC BY-NCFull textEpidemiology & public healthmedRxiv
  4. Preferences for digital health services among patients with chronic kidney disease: a discrete choice experiment
    Lifang Wei, Yueyang Huang, Difei Duan +6
    Frontiers in public healthPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textEpidemiology & public healthEurope PMCCrossref
  5. Public preferences for health data sharing governance: a discrete choice experiment in China
    Jie Li, Yulu Jin, Huaicheng Hui +1
    Frontiers in Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textEpidemiology & public healthCrossrefEurope PMCPMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{almandoz2026preferences,
  title = {{Preferences for Obesity Medications Among People With Overweight or Obesity in the United States: A Discrete‐Choice Experiment (OPTIC)}},
  author = {Jaime P. Almandoz and Beverly G. Tchang and Kelley Myers and Andrea Traina and Jigish Bhavsar and Victoria Divino and Cannon Kent and Sara Tadesse Bell},
  journal = {Diabetes, Obesity \& Metabolism},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  doi = {10.1111/dom.71318},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.71318},
  note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Preferences for Obesity Medications Among People With Overweight or Obesity in the United States: A Discrete‐Choice Experiment (OPTIC)
AU  - Jaime P. Almandoz
AU  - Beverly G. Tchang
AU  - Kelley Myers
AU  - Andrea Traina
AU  - Jigish Bhavsar
AU  - Victoria Divino
AU  - Cannon Kent
AU  - Sara Tadesse Bell
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/09/17
JO  - Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism
DO  - 10.1111/dom.71318
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.71318
AB  - Aims: To evaluate the relative importance of attributes driving obesity medication (OM) choice and preferences among individuals with overweight or obesity.  Materials and Methods: US adults with obesity or overweight and ≥ 1 obesity‐related complication completed an online survey including a discrete‐choice experiment (DCE) in October–November 2025. In the DCE, participants chose between 2 hypothetical, experimentally designed OM profiles with attributes/levels related to efficacy, cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction, side effects, administration (route/frequency), and dosing instruction requirements. In a fixed‐choice comparison, participants chose between 2 predefined oral OM profiles. Relative preference weights for the DCE attribute levels were estimated using a random‐parameters logit model to estimate attribute importance, tradeoffs, and predicted treatment choice.  Results: Among 800 participants (400 OM‐naïve/400 OM‐experienced, 400 injection‐naïve/400 injection‐experienced), the most important attributes were route of administration, average weight‐loss percentage, CV risk reduction, and the proportion of people achieving ≥ 20% weight loss. Dosing instructions had the lowest relative importance. There was a preference for 1 OM profile (Treatment A—a hypothetical oral semaglutide‐like profile) over the alternative OM profile (Treatment B—a hypothetical orforglipron‐like profile), according to the responses from the DCE (84.2% vs. 15.8%) and the fixed‐choice question (90.0% vs. 10.0%). Only 23.4% indicated that taking an OM treatment on an empty stomach and waiting 30 min to eat would be disruptive to their lives. Most (73.3%) OM‐naïve participants were open to taking an oral OM.  Conclusions: Individuals with overweight or obesity prioritise weight‐loss efficacy, CV risk reduction, and oral administration in OM treatment decisions; dosing instruction requirements were of low importance.
SN  - 1462-8902
SN  - 1463-1326
ER  -