Search

The role of the Jordanian legislator in regulating both the rights of preemption and preferences in the legislation in force in Jordan in the Real Estate Law of 2019 is of great significance. Appropriating the descriptive-analytical research method, this article examines the procedures for reforming the preference right under the pre-emption right regulatory provisions. The results indicate a great deal of similarity between the legal provisions regulating and preference in various substantive and procedural provisions. The findings also show that both legal provisions regulating and preference share the fact that they apply to real estate, not movable property. Given the said results, several key recommendations are suitably incorporated into the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT: Background: Uncontrolled diabetes persists despite guideline-based treatment, partly attributed to inadequate patient involvement. This research addresses shared decision-making by eliciting patient preferences in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) treatment based on certain key attributes and explores their correlation with socio-demographic-clinical profiles. Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among T2DM outpatients in an Indian tertiary care center. A choice card was developed using the contextual choice framework, having six second-line antidiabetic drugs (ADs) from different classes incorporating seven attributes. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with patients, and elicited preferences were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Chi-square analysis, and multinomial logistic regression. Results: Out of the 87 evaluated participant choices, the most preferred drug was Glimepiride (51.7%), followed by Dapagliflozin (22.9%) and Teneligliptin (17.2%). Overall, the most important attributes were the effect on weight (29%), followed by route of administration (24%), and additional benefits offered by the drug (18%). Significant associations were found between participants' drug preferences and their age (P = 0.002), socioeconomic status (P = 0.04), occupation (P = 0.004), and monthly income (P = 0.03). Age was not a significant predictor of drug choice for any of the drugs. Multinomial logistic regression showed that the overall model was statistically significant (P = 0.025), and it correctly predicted drug choice for 58.6% of the participants. Conclusion: Glimepiride was the most preferred option overall while the effect on weight was the most important attribute for patients in determining their preference. The study highlighted the importance of shared decisions and can guide practitioners in considering patient preferences when prescribing antidiabetic drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patients with advanced ovarian cancer face a range of treatment options, and there is unwarranted variation in treatment decision-making between UK providers. Decision support tools that produce data on treatment outcomes as a function of individual patient characteristics, would help both patients and clinicians to make informed, preference- and values-based choices. However, data on treatment outcomes to include in such tools are lacking. Methods: Following a literature review, a questionnaire was designed for use in a Delphi process to establish which treatment outcomes are important to both patients and clinicians in decision-making for treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. Patient and clinician panels were established. Results: Following 2 Delphi rounds, consensus was achieved for 7/11 items in the patient panel and 8/11 items in the clinician panel. Consensus across both panels was achieved for inclusion of both overall survival and progression free survival as important items in the decision-making process, although there remained differences of opinion as to whether these should be presented as relative or absolute values. Conclusion: Information needs for treatment decision-making in ovarian cancer differ between and within patient and clinician groups. Whilst overall survival and progression free survival are universally accepted as important data items, decision support tools will need to be nuanced to allow presentation of a range of outcomes and associated probabilities, and in a range of formats, that can be tailored to the preferences of clinician and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Older adults with cancer facing competing treatments must prioritize between various outcomes. This study assessed health outcome prioritization among older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy. Methods: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial addressing vulnerabilities in older adults with cancer. Patients completed three validated outcome prioritization tools: 1) Health Outcomes Tool: prioritizes outcomes (survival, independence, symptoms) using a visual analog scale; 2) Now vs. Later Tool: rates the importance of quality of life at three times—today versus 1 or 5 years in the future; and 3) Attitude Scale: rates agreement with outcome‐related statements. The authors measured the proportion of patients prioritizing various outcomes and evaluated their characteristics. Results: A total of 219 patients (median [range] age 71 [65–88], 68% with metastatic disease) were included. On the Health Outcomes Tool, 60.7% prioritized survival over other outcomes. Having localized disease was associated with choosing survival as top priority. On the Now vs. Later Tool, 50% gave equal importance to current versus future quality of life. On the Attitude Scale, 53.4% disagreed with the statement "the most important thing to me is living as long as I can, no matter what my quality of life is"; and 82.2% agreed with the statement "it is more important to me to maintain my thinking ability than to live as long as possible". Conclusion: Although survival was the top priority for most participants, some older individuals with cancer prioritize other outcomes, such as cognition and function. Clinicians should elicit patient‐defined priorities and include them in decision‐making. In this secondary analysis of 219 older participants (median age 71 years) from a randomized trial addressing vulnerabilities in older adults with cancer, 61% prioritized survival over other outcomes such as maintaining their independence or being free from symptoms. Clinicians should elicit patient‐defined priorities and include them in decision‐making when discussing treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Prior discrete choice experiments (DCE) in oncology found that, on average, clinicians rank survival as the most important treatment attribute. We investigate heterogeneity in clinician preferences within the context of first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and the UK. Methods: The online DCE included 12 treatment choice tasks, each comparing two hypothetical therapy profiles defined by treatment attributes: grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), induction and maintenance administration schedules, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). We used a random parameters logit model to estimate attribute relative importance (RI) (0–100%) and generate preference shares for four treatment profiles. Results were stratified by country. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated by latent class analysis. Results: In August and September 2022, 498 clinicians (343 oncologists and 155 urologists) completed the DCE. OS had the strongest influence on clinicians' preferences [RI = 62%; range, 51.6% (Germany) to 63.7% (Spain)] followed by frequency of grade 3/4 TRAEs (RI = 27%). Among treatment profiles, the chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy profile had the largest preference share [51%; range, 38% (Italy) to 56% (UK)]. Four latent classes of clinicians were identified (N = 469), with different treatment profile preferences: survival class (30.1%), trade-off class (22.4%), no strong preference class (40.9%), and aggressive treatment class (6.6%). OS was not the most important attribute for 30.0% of clinicians. Conclusion: While average sample results were consistent with those of prior DCEs, this study found heterogeneity in clinician preferences within and across countries, highlighting the diversity in clinician decision making in oncology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper focuses on the different Shari'ah resolutions on preference shares. This study aims to provide a systematic review to cover all authentic, peer-reviewed literature on this issue between the years 2001 and 2020. Design/methodology/approach: This library research combines, compares and contrasts the discussions and the results of all these papers besides the opinions and discussions of some renowned scholars in the field. Findings: The aim of this paper was met as every research during that period was included and scrutinized which resulted in a comprehensive knowledge about the presence shares. Research limitations/implications: One of the limitations was the limited research on the Shari'ah issues in preference shares as a regulatory capital that meets Basel III accords. Originality/value: This paper will be the reference for any researcher who wants to add value on this issue and to start from where researchers ended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment of Substance Use Disorder (SUD) is complex and therefore including patients in the therapeutic process is needed. Patient-Centered Care (PCC) and Shared Decision-Making (SDM) have been associated with greater satisfaction, self-control, and less substance use. However, correlates of SDM have not been investigated in this population. Method: A cross-sectional analysis was carried out in 214 SUD patients to identify sociodemographic, clinical and psychological correlates of preferences and perceptions about participation in SDM and degree of activation. The Control Preference Scale (CPS), the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-9-Q) and the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) were used to assess the PCC elements. Multinomial logistic regression was used to analyze the correlates of the CPS variables (preferred role, perceived role, and role matching). For SDM-9-Q and PAM, multilevel linear regression was used. Results: Preferring an active role, compared to a shared one, was significantly associated with higher educational level, lower neuroticism, absence of affective and alcohol use disorders, and higher quality of life. Perceiving greater participation was significantly associated with not being a new patient, having fewer legal problems, higher severity of alcohol consumption, not presenting polydrug use and main substance use different than opioids or sedatives. Activation was associated with higher scores in the personality trait activity, a preference for an active role and greater perception of being involved in the decision process. Conclusions: Patients with milder clinical profiles prefer an active role compared to a shared one. Patients who prefer or perceive a shared or passive role did not show relevant differences. Greater activation was related to preference for an active role and the perception of having been involved in decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]