The objectives of this study were to validate the Patient Empowerment Strategies Questionnaire (PES-Q) in a Greek sample and to study its psychometric properties in a sample of patients diagnosed with chronic insomnia.

This is a validation of the PES-Q in Attikon General Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The questionnaire was administered to 93 subjects aged between 18 and 85 years (mean age ± SD: 54.7 ± 15.2, 28% males).

The criterion validity of the questionnaire was tested with the use of four specific criteria: the Athens Insomnia Scale, the Pittsburg questionnaire (Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index), the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale, and the Self-Esteem Scale.

According to factor analysis results, the structure of the original scale was confirmed by the presence of one main factor in the Greek sample, explaining 40.1% of the variance of PES-Q queries. The questionnaire showed satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.887). The results of the current study suggest that the PES-Q may be used as an accurate psychometric instrument for the purposes of chronic insomnia. Future research should examine the psychometric qualities of the PES-Q Greek version in a larger sample.

Patient involvement in drug evaluation decision making is increasing. The aim of the current study was to develop a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework that would enable the inclusion of the patient perspective in the selection of appropriate criteria for MCDAs being used in the value assessments of oncologic drugs.

A literature review was conducted to identify and define criteria used in drug assessments from patient perspectives. The Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making methodology was used to develop a MCDA framework. Identified criteria were discussed by a sample of oncology patient association representatives who decided which criteria were important from patient perspectives. Selected criteria were rated by importance. The preliminary MCDA framework was tested through the assessment of a hypothetical oncology treatment. A discussion was carried out to agree on a final pilot MCDA framework.

Twenty-two criteria were extracted from the literature review. After criteria discussion, sixteen criteria remained. The most important criteria were comparative patient reported outcomes (PRO), comparative efficacy and disease severity. After the discussion generated by the scoring of the hypothetical oncology treatment, the final pilot MCDA framework included seven quantitative criteria (“disease severity”, “unmet needs”, “comparative efficacy / effectiveness”, “comparative safety / tolerability”, “comparative PROs”, “contribution of oncological innovation”) and one contextual criterion (“population priorities and access”).

The present study developed a pilot reflective MCDA framework that could increase patient's capability to participate in the decision-making process by providing systematic drug assessments from the patient perspective.