Illustrative case study · Healthcare & Life Sciences

Patients mind the clinic visits more than weekly dosing.

A biotech could fund one next step on its treatment for Condition X, a monthly dose or routine checks at home, and put the choice to patients first. The report, built on 300 interviews with adults living with Condition X, treated and untreated, was delivered in 19 days.

Illustrative scenario

Samplen = 300

Illustrative report

Patient Treatment Preference Conjoint

Should the biotech fund a monthly dose of its treatment next, or move its clinic checks home?

Study architecture

Measure the trade-offsTen choice tasks on efficacy, dosing, route and monitoring

Size the switchWho would switch to, or start on, each new profile

Map daily lifeWhat Condition X and its clinic checks cost in a month

Scope

A conjoint makes patients trade one feature against another, so it shows what each change is worth to them.

Sample

300

Adults with a clinician’s diagnosis of Condition X, treated and untreated.

Research by

Study typeTrade-off study

ScenarioIllustrative

Treatment preference conjoint · Executive reportExecutive summary

Executive summary

Patients would give more for fewer clinic visits than for a monthly dose

The 300 adults with Condition X, treated and untreated, made ten choices each between treatment profiles. Efficacy leads, but monitoring outweighs the dosing schedule, and among adults not yet treated it passes efficacy. In the simulator, moving the monthly clinic check home lifts preference share from 28% to 46%, more than twice the gain of a monthly dose.

29%n = 300

of the choice rests on monitoring

46%n = 300

preference share with home checks

44%n = 180

of treated adults open to switching

35%n = 120

monitoring share among adults not yet treated

Figures rounded. Base n = 300 adults with Condition X unless stated.

Top lines

1Clinic visits weigh more than the dosing scheduleAttribute importance and patient groups03

2Home checks lift preference share from 28% to 46%Preference simulator04

3Home checks win more patients than a monthly doseSwitching and starting05

4Condition X shapes the month, and the clinic check adds to itDaily life with Condition X06

5Sample, screener and quality controlWho we interviewed and how07

AAppendixQuestion flow and data tables09

Sample

300 adults with Condition X

Groups

180 treated, 120 untreated

Method

Conjoint, ten tasks, with a simulator

Attributes

Four: efficacy, dosing, route, monitoring

Illustrative report. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional.

Illustrative report02

Illustrative reportExecutive summary

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

The engagement

Delivered in

days, with the report, the data file and a live readout.

Interviews

300

Adults living with Condition X, treated and untreated.

Audiences

180 treated and 120 untreated adults.

Method

Conjoint

Ten choices between two profiles or neither, treated and untreated adults.

The brief

Client

A biotech with a treatment for Condition X

Decision

Fund a monthly dose or home checks next

Stage

Development planning, before launch

How we ran it

Approach

AI-moderated interviews with a ten-task conjoint

Measured

Attribute importance, switching and starting, daily life

Sample

Adults with Condition X who make their own treatment choices

Headline figures

Importance29%

of the choice rests on monitoring, more than the 22% on dosing schedule

Simulator46%

preference share with home checks every three months, up from 28%

Switching44%

of treated adults are open to switching to the home-check profile

The question

A monthly dose, or clinic checks moved home?

The biotech’s weekly treatment for Condition X comes with a routine monthly monitoring visit at the clinic. The development team could fund one next step, a monthly dose or a home check every three months, and the launch team needed to know which one patients value more, treated and untreated alike.

What do adults with Condition X trade away when they choose a treatment?

What gets treated patients to switch, and untreated adults to start?

How does Condition X shape a typical month?

What we did

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff
One budget, two next steps.
Should we fund a monthly dose of our treatment next, or move its clinic checks home? The kickoff turned it into three questions: what patients trade away in a treatment, what gets them to switch or start, and how Condition X shapes a typical month.
2Design
Ten choices in patient terms.
Every adult has a clinician’s diagnosis of Condition X and decides their own treatment: 180 treated, 120 untreated. Each made ten choices between two profiles or neither, built on efficacy as symptom-free days a month, dosing, route and monitoring.
3Fielding
What a clinic visit costs them.
Interviews ran by voice or text, quant and qual in one conversation, for a median 41 minutes; whenever clinic visits came up, patients said what each costs them. The researcher read all 346 and removed 46 for rushed choice tasks or duplicate identities, leaving 300.
4Analysis
Clinic visits outweigh dosing.
The researcher mapped patients into groups by what each would give up, and the fewer-visits group outnumbered the fewer-doses group. Monitoring carried 29% of the choice and dosing schedule 22%; among adults not yet treated, monitoring rose to 35%.
5Readout
Home checks win 46% preference share.
The researcher shared a 39-page report live with the launch team: the conjoint model, a preference simulator, daily-life themes, every verbatim and the full data file. Next year’s money went to home checks, worth 18 points of preference share against 7 for a monthly dose.

What we found

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Efficacy leads, but clinic visits weigh more than the dosing schedule: monitoring carries 29% of the choice against 22% for dosing. Adults not yet treated weigh monitoring most, at 35%, above efficacy. In the simulator, home checks every three months lift preference share from 28% to 46%, an 18-point gain against 7 points for a monthly dose.

Treatment preference conjoint · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

Clinic visits weigh more than the dosing schedule

¹ Conjoint block: ten tasks, two profiles or neither per task, four attributes; hierarchical Bayes estimation, n = 300.

² Groups from latent class analysis on individual utilities; group sizes 114, 108 and 78.

Each patient made ten choices between two treatment profiles or neither. Monitoring carries 29% of the choice, ahead of dosing schedule at 22%¹. Efficacy leads at 36% and route trails at 13%. Among adults not yet treated, monitoring rises to 35% and passes efficacy, at 32%.

29%n = 300

of the choice rests on monitoring

22%n = 300

rests on dosing schedule

36%n = 300

rests on efficacy, the top attribute

35%n = 120

monitoring share among adults not yet treated

Attribute importance and patient groups

Attribute importance, share of the choice (n = 300)

Importance among adults not yet treated (n = 120)

Patient groups, by what each would give up (n = 300)

Effect firstFewer visitsFewer doses

Hierarchical Bayes estimates. Importance is each attribute’s share of the utility range, averaged across patients. Monitoring is where and how often the routine progress check happens. Patient groups from latent class analysis.

Supporting evidence

Treated adults still rank monitoring above dosing schedule, 25% against 19%. § 3.2
The fewer-visits group is larger than the fewer-doses group, 36% of patients against 26%. § 3.4²

Illustrative report03

Treatment preference conjoint · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

Home checks lift preference share from 28% to 46%

¹ Simulator on hierarchical Bayes utilities, share of preference rule, n = 300.

² Base profile: weekly dose, monthly clinic check, today’s efficacy and route.

The simulator sets the treatment against today’s options and no treatment. Moving the monthly clinic check to a home check every three months lifts preference share from 28% to 46%¹, an 18-point gain. A monthly dose adds 7 points, to 35%. Both changes together reach 52%, slightly less than the two gains added.

28%n = 300

preference share as profiled today

46%n = 300

with a home check every three months

35%n = 300

with a monthly dose

52%n = 300

with both changes

Simulated preference share, by treatment profile

Simulated preference share, by profile (n = 300)

Share with home checks, by group

Share with a monthly dose, by group

Share of preference against today’s treatment options and a no-treatment choice, from individual utilities. Other attributes held at today’s profile.

Supporting evidence

Adults not yet treated gain most from home checks, reaching 53% share. § 4.2
With a monthly dose, untreated adults reach 39% share and treated adults 32%; dosing weighs more for the untreated. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Treatment preference conjoint · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Home checks win more patients than a monthly dose

¹ Q16. How open would you be to switching to, or starting on, this profile? Five-point scale.

² Q17. What has held you back from starting treatment? Ranked, asked of the 120 untreated adults.

After the choice tasks, patients said how open they would be to each new profile. 44% of treated adults are open to switching to the home-check profile, against 34% for a monthly dose¹. Among adults not yet treated, 47% would start on the home-check profile and 39% on a monthly dose.

44%n = 180

of treated adults open to the home-check profile

34%n = 180

of treated adults open to a monthly dose

47%n = 120

of untreated adults would start with home checks

39%n = 120

of untreated adults would start with a monthly dose

Openness to switching or starting, by profile

Open to switching or starting, by profile

Treated adults on the home-check profile (n = 180)

Very openSomewhat openUnsureNot open

Why untreated adults hold back, top three

1Clinic visits in work hours
2Unsure the benefit is worth it
3Travel to the clinic

Top two boxes on a five-point scale. Asked after the choice tasks, with each profile described in the same terms.

Supporting evidence

Among treated adults, openness is highest in the fewer-visits group. § 5.2
Clinic visits in work hours lead the reasons untreated adults give for waiting. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Treatment preference conjoint · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

Condition X shapes the month, and the clinic check adds to it

¹ Q22. In the past month, which of these happened because of Condition X or its care? Multi-select, n = 300.

² Q25. What is the hardest part of your care today? Single select, asked of the 180 treated adults.

Patients described a typical month with Condition X. 61% changed plans around symptoms, and 41% took time off work for a clinic visit¹. Among treated adults, 52% name the monthly check as the hardest part of their care, ahead of the weekly dose at 19%.

61%n = 300

changed plans around symptoms

41%n = 300

took time off work for a clinic visit

52%n = 180

of treated adults name the monthly check hardest

19%n = 180

of treated adults name the weekly dose hardest

What Condition X and its care cost in a typical month

In a typical month with Condition X, multi-select (n = 300)

Hardest part of care, treated adults (n = 180)

Monthly clinic checkWeekly doseCost of careOther

Took time off for a clinic visit, by group

Self-reported for the past month. Multi-select; shares do not sum to 100.

Supporting evidence

Arranging travel to the clinic adds to the month for 26% of adults. § 6.2
Time off for a clinic visit is highest among treated adults, at 47%. § 6.3²

Illustrative report06

Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report

Question 1 · Importance

Clinic visits weigh more than the dosing schedule.

Efficacy carries 36% of the choice. Monitoring comes second at 29%, ahead of dosing schedule (22%) and route (13%). Among adults not yet treated, monitoring rises to 35%, above efficacy itself.

Efficacy36%

Monitoring29%

Dosing schedule22%

Route13%

Attribute importance, conjoint model · n = 300

Question 2 · The simulator

Home checks lift preference share from 28% to 46%.

Against today’s options and no treatment, the profile as it stands wins 28% preference share. A monthly dose lifts it to 35%. A home check every three months lifts it to 46%, an 18-point gain, and both changes together reach 52%.

+18points with home checks

+7points with a monthly dose

Simulated preference share · n = 300

Question 2 · Switching

Home checks win more patients than a monthly dose.

44% of treated adults are open to switching to the home-check profile, against 34% for a monthly dose. Among adults not yet treated, 47% would start on the home-check profile and 39% on a monthly dose.

Treated: home checks44%

Treated: monthly dose34%

Untreated: home checks47%

Untreated: monthly dose39%

Open to switching or starting · n = 180 treated, n = 120 untreated

Question 3 · Daily life

Condition X shapes the month, and the clinic check adds to it.

In a typical month, 61% changed plans around symptoms and 41% took time off work for a clinic visit. Among treated adults, 52% name the monthly check as the hardest part of their care, ahead of the weekly dose at 19%.

Changed plans for symptoms61%

Time off for a clinic visit41%

Sleep disrupted by symptoms39%

Arranged travel to the clinic26%

In a typical month · multi-select · n = 300

“I can live with the weekly dose. What wears me down is losing a morning every month to a ten-minute check at the clinic.”

Patient on weekly treatment · Illustrative quote

Illustrative quotes

Three themes behind the numbers.

Clinic visits

“My manager is understanding, but there are only so many mornings I can ask for. The check itself is quick; the trip takes half a day.”

Treated patient

Starting treatment

“I keep putting it off because it means another standing appointment. If the checks came to me, I would have started already.”

Untreated adult

Dosing

“Once a week is a habit now, like taking out the trash. A monthly dose would be nice, but it would not change my week.”

Long-term patient

What the biotech did

Three moves made with the report.

1The budget · from finding 2

Funded home checks ahead of a monthly dose.

Next year’s development money goes to moving the monthly clinic check to a home check every three months, worth 18 points of preference share.

2The launch story · from finding 1

Built the launch story on fewer clinic visits.

Launch plans for the home-check profile lead with time back from clinic visits; monitoring carries 29% of the choice.

3New patients · from finding 3

Planned a track for adults not yet treated.

With 47% of untreated adults open to starting on the home-check profile, the launch plan adds outreach for people who have put treatment off.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

Bring us your next launch question.

A senior researcher designs and presents every study.

Talk to our team

More healthcare & life sciences studies

Monadic A/B test

A monthly dose, or clinic checks moved home?

How the study ran, start to finish.

1Kickoff

One budget, two next steps.

Should we fund a monthly dose of our treatment next, or move its clinic checks home? The kickoff turned it into three questions: what patients trade away in a treatment, what gets them to switch or start, and how Condition X shapes a typical month.

2Design

Ten choices in patient terms.

Every adult has a clinician’s diagnosis of Condition X and decides their own treatment: 180 treated, 120 untreated. Each made ten choices between two profiles or neither, built on efficacy as symptom-free days a month, dosing, route and monitoring.

3Fielding

What a clinic visit costs them.

Interviews ran by voice or text, quant and qual in one conversation, for a median 41 minutes; whenever clinic visits came up, patients said what each costs them. The researcher read all 346 and removed 46 for rushed choice tasks or duplicate identities, leaving 300.

4Analysis

Clinic visits outweigh dosing.

The researcher mapped patients into groups by what each would give up, and the fewer-visits group outnumbered the fewer-doses group. Monitoring carried 29% of the choice and dosing schedule 22%; among adults not yet treated, monitoring rose to 35%.

5Readout

Home checks win 46% preference share.

The researcher shared a 39-page report live with the launch team: the conjoint model, a preference simulator, daily-life themes, every verbatim and the full data file. Next year’s money went to home checks, worth 18 points of preference share against 7 for a monthly dose.

Four findings from the report.

Summary

Treatment preference conjoint · Executive reportTop line 1

Top line 1 of 4

Clinic visits weigh more than the dosing schedule

¹ Conjoint block: ten tasks, two profiles or neither per task, four attributes; hierarchical Bayes estimation, n = 300.

² Groups from latent class analysis on individual utilities; group sizes 114, 108 and 78.

29%n = 300

of the choice rests on monitoring

22%n = 300

rests on dosing schedule

36%n = 300

rests on efficacy, the top attribute

35%n = 120

monitoring share among adults not yet treated

Attribute importance and patient groups

Attribute importance, share of the choice (n = 300)

Importance among adults not yet treated (n = 120)

Patient groups, by what each would give up (n = 300)

Effect firstFewer visitsFewer doses

Supporting evidence

Treated adults still rank monitoring above dosing schedule, 25% against 19%. § 3.2
The fewer-visits group is larger than the fewer-doses group, 36% of patients against 26%. § 3.4²

Illustrative report03

Treatment preference conjoint · Executive reportTop line 2

Top line 2 of 4

Home checks lift preference share from 28% to 46%

¹ Simulator on hierarchical Bayes utilities, share of preference rule, n = 300.

² Base profile: weekly dose, monthly clinic check, today’s efficacy and route.

28%n = 300

preference share as profiled today

46%n = 300

with a home check every three months

35%n = 300

with a monthly dose

52%n = 300

with both changes

Simulated preference share, by treatment profile

Simulated preference share, by profile (n = 300)

Share with home checks, by group

Share with a monthly dose, by group

Share of preference against today’s treatment options and a no-treatment choice, from individual utilities. Other attributes held at today’s profile.

Supporting evidence

Adults not yet treated gain most from home checks, reaching 53% share. § 4.2
With a monthly dose, untreated adults reach 39% share and treated adults 32%; dosing weighs more for the untreated. § 4.3²

Illustrative report04

Treatment preference conjoint · Executive reportTop line 3

Top line 3 of 4

Home checks win more patients than a monthly dose

¹ Q16. How open would you be to switching to, or starting on, this profile? Five-point scale.

² Q17. What has held you back from starting treatment? Ranked, asked of the 120 untreated adults.

44%n = 180

of treated adults open to the home-check profile

34%n = 180

of treated adults open to a monthly dose

47%n = 120

of untreated adults would start with home checks

39%n = 120

of untreated adults would start with a monthly dose

Openness to switching or starting, by profile

Open to switching or starting, by profile

Treated adults on the home-check profile (n = 180)

Very openSomewhat openUnsureNot open

Why untreated adults hold back, top three

1Clinic visits in work hours
2Unsure the benefit is worth it
3Travel to the clinic

Top two boxes on a five-point scale. Asked after the choice tasks, with each profile described in the same terms.

Supporting evidence

Among treated adults, openness is highest in the fewer-visits group. § 5.2
Clinic visits in work hours lead the reasons untreated adults give for waiting. § 5.3²

Illustrative report05

Treatment preference conjoint · Executive reportTop line 4

Top line 4 of 4

Condition X shapes the month, and the clinic check adds to it

¹ Q22. In the past month, which of these happened because of Condition X or its care? Multi-select, n = 300.

² Q25. What is the hardest part of your care today? Single select, asked of the 180 treated adults.

61%n = 300

changed plans around symptoms

41%n = 300

took time off work for a clinic visit

52%n = 180

of treated adults name the monthly check hardest

19%n = 180

of treated adults name the weekly dose hardest

What Condition X and its care cost in a typical month

In a typical month with Condition X, multi-select (n = 300)

Hardest part of care, treated adults (n = 180)

Monthly clinic checkWeekly doseCost of careOther

Took time off for a clinic visit, by group

Self-reported for the past month. Multi-select; shares do not sum to 100.

Supporting evidence

Arranging travel to the clinic adds to the month for 26% of adults. § 6.2
Time off for a clinic visit is highest among treated adults, at 47%. § 6.3²

Illustrative report06

Top line 1 of 4 · page 03Illustrative report · top line 1 of 4 · swipeIllustrative report

Question 1 · Importance

Clinic visits weigh more than the dosing schedule.

Efficacy carries 36% of the choice. Monitoring comes second at 29%, ahead of dosing schedule (22%) and route (13%). Among adults not yet treated, monitoring rises to 35%, above efficacy itself.

Efficacy36%

Monitoring29%

Dosing schedule22%

Route13%

Attribute importance, conjoint model · n = 300

Question 2 · The simulator

Home checks lift preference share from 28% to 46%.

+18points with home checks

+7points with a monthly dose

Simulated preference share · n = 300

Question 2 · Switching

Home checks win more patients than a monthly dose.

Treated: home checks44%

Treated: monthly dose34%

Untreated: home checks47%

Untreated: monthly dose39%

Open to switching or starting · n = 180 treated, n = 120 untreated

Question 3 · Daily life

Condition X shapes the month, and the clinic check adds to it.

Changed plans for symptoms61%

Time off for a clinic visit41%

Sleep disrupted by symptoms39%

Arranged travel to the clinic26%

In a typical month · multi-select · n = 300

Three themes behind the numbers.

Clinic visits

“My manager is understanding, but there are only so many mornings I can ask for. The check itself is quick; the trip takes half a day.”

Treated patient

Starting treatment

“I keep putting it off because it means another standing appointment. If the checks came to me, I would have started already.”

Untreated adult

Dosing

“Once a week is a habit now, like taking out the trash. A monthly dose would be nice, but it would not change my week.”

Long-term patient

Three moves made with the report.

1The budget · from finding 2

Funded home checks ahead of a monthly dose.

Next year’s development money goes to moving the monthly clinic check to a home check every three months, worth 18 points of preference share.

2The launch story · from finding 1

Built the launch story on fewer clinic visits.

Launch plans for the home-check profile lead with time back from clinic visits; monitoring carries 29% of the choice.

3New patients · from finding 3

Planned a track for adults not yet treated.

With 47% of untreated adults open to starting on the home-check profile, the launch plan adds outreach for people who have put treatment off.

Illustrative example. The company, scenario, and all figures are fictional. They show UserCue’s method and deliverable format. They do not come from any client study.

A monthly dose, or clinic checks moved home?

What do adults with Condition X trade away when they choose a treatment?

What gets treated patients to switch, and untreated adults to start?

How does Condition X shape a typical month?

How the study ran, start to finish.

One budget, two next steps.

Ten choices in patient terms.

What a clinic visit costs them.

Clinic visits outweigh dosing.

Home checks win 46% preference share.

Four findings from the report.

Clinic visits weigh more than the dosing schedule.

Home checks lift preference share from 28% to 46%.

Home checks win more patients than a monthly dose.

Condition X shapes the month, and the clinic check adds to it.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Funded home checks ahead of a monthly dose.

Built the launch story on fewer clinic visits.

Planned a track for adults not yet treated.

Bring us your next launch question.

Pharma Brand Identity Test

Combination Regimen Choice

Clinical Lab QC Materials Sizing

A monthly dose, or clinic checks moved home?

What do adults with Condition X trade away when they choose a treatment?

What gets treated patients to switch, and untreated adults to start?

How does Condition X shape a typical month?

How the study ran, start to finish.

One budget, two next steps.

Ten choices in patient terms.

What a clinic visit costs them.

Clinic visits outweigh dosing.

Home checks win 46% preference share.

Four findings from the report.

Clinic visits weigh more than the dosing schedule.

Home checks lift preference share from 28% to 46%.

Home checks win more patients than a monthly dose.

Condition X shapes the month, and the clinic check adds to it.

Three themes behind the numbers.

Three moves made with the report.

Funded home checks ahead of a monthly dose.

Built the launch story on fewer clinic visits.

Planned a track for adults not yet treated.

Bring us your next launch question.

Pharma Brand Identity Test

Combination Regimen Choice

Clinical Lab QC Materials Sizing