Published: November 29, 2023



Heart failure (HF) is a pervasive and debilitating condition affecting millions globally, necessitating continuous monitoring and treatment. However, choosing the most suitable monitoring system can be complex, as it requires balancing potential benefits and risks while considering individual patient preferences.


Client's Problem

A research team sought to understand patient preferences regarding HF treatment and monitoring alternatives, recognizing the significant impact these preferences have on adherence and overall outcomes. The challenge was not only to identify preferences but also to ensure that the solutions devised catered to the diverse needs of patients, thereby enhancing patient satisfaction and treatment effectiveness.


Proposed Solution

The team proposed a comprehensive research approach centered around patient preferences and experiences. They utilized Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) methodology to analyze patient choices, ensuring that the study focused on what mattered most to patients. Additionally, they incorporated qualitative insights to delve deeper into the human aspect of decision-making, capturing nuances that quantitative data alone might miss.


Human-Centered Approach

The solution was inherently human-centered, designed to prioritize patient perspectives and needs. By conducting in-depth interviews and surveys, the team gained valuable insights into the factors influencing patient decision-making. Empathy exercises and user research helped them understand the emotional and practical considerations guiding patients' choices, ensuring that the solutions derived were truly reflective of patient preferences.


Impact on Decision Makers

The human-centered approach not only provided valuable insights for healthcare providers but also supported decision-makers in resource allocation and treatment planning. By aligning treatment options with patient preferences, decision-makers could make more informed choices, ultimately leading to improved patient care and outcomes.



The project yielded significant insights into patient preferences for HF treatment and monitoring, underscoring the importance of placing humans at the center of research endeavors. The human-centered approach facilitated a deeper understanding of patient needs and preferences, leading to more effective and patient-oriented treatment strategies.


Broader Implications

The success of this project highlights the broader implications of human-centered research in healthcare and beyond. By prioritizing human needs and experiences, researchers and decision-makers can address complex challenges more effectively, leading to better outcomes and enhanced user satisfaction. This approach can be applied across various domains, emphasizing the value of empathy and user-centric design in problem-solving processes.



Mühlbacher, Axel C., Andrew Sadler, and Christin Juhnke. "Preferences for Monitoring Comprehensive Heart Failure Care: A Latent Class Analysis." The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 17.1 (2024): 83-95


Mühlbacher, Axel, and F. Reed Johnson. "Choice experiments to quantify preferences for health and healthcare: state of the practice." Applied health economics and health policy 14 (2016): 253-266.


Mühlbacher, Axel, and Susanne Bethge. "What matters in type 2 diabetes mellitus oral treatment? A discrete choice experiment to evaluate patient preferences." The European Journal of Health Economics 17 (2016): 1125-1140.


Mühlbacher AC, Juhnke C, Beyer AR, Garner S. Patient-focused benefit-risk analysis to inform regulatory decisions: the European Union perspective. Value Health. 2016;19(6):734–40.


Mühlbacher AC, Sadler A, Dippel F-W, Juhnke C. Treatment preferences in germany differ among apheresis patients with severe hypercholesterolemia. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(4):477–93.


Mühlbacher A, Bethge S, Kaczynski A, Juhnke C. Objective criteria in the medicinal therapy for type II diabetes: an analysis of the patients’ perspective with analytic hierarchy process and best-worst scaling. Gesundheitswesen. 2015;78(5):326–36.