Introduction: Patient values and preferences (PVP) are among multiple sources of information panelists synthesize when developing clinical practice guidelines (CPG). Patient and public involvement (PPI) can be critical for learning PVP; however, the methodology for engaging patients in CPG development is lacking. Deliberative engagement is effective for obtaining public views on complex topics that require people to consider ethics, values, and competing perspectives.
Objective: Elicit comprehensive understanding of PVP concerning oral analgesics for managing acute dental pain consecutive to toothache and simple and surgical dental extractions, with consideration of associated outcomes, both desirable and undesirable.
Methods: Multistage engagement involving 2 electronic surveys and a 90-min online small group deliberative engagement. Adults who have experienced acute dental pain deliberated about 3 hypothetical scenarios stratified according to expected pain intensity, completed a postdeliberation survey, and validated a PVP statement developed by researchers based on review of qualitative data from deliberations and quantitative data from surveys.
Results: Participants affirmed the PVP statement reflected their small group deliberations and their individual views. Most indicated that pain relief is critical to deciding which pain relief medicine they would want regardless of expected pain level. Most also identify as critical concerns about substance abuse or misuse, although many believe it unlikely that they will experience these outcomes over the brief prescription timeframe for acute dental pain. Participants identified agency in decision-making, consultation including "better communication" of options, and treatment actions tailored to life circumstances as key values.
Conclusions: Participants preferred nonprescription and nonopioid pain relief options. As expected pain levels increased, more participants expressed willingness to accept opioids, but more also mentioned rescue analgesia as a third outcome critical to decision-making. Online deliberative method provided opportunities for obtaining informed perspectives. Guideline developers and policymakers may find online deliberations useful for eliciting PVP related to health outcomes.
Knowledge transfer statement: Study results informed the US Food and Drug Administration-funded clinical practice guideline on the management of acute dental pain. Findings may be a resource for clinicians in decision-making conversations with patients regarding expectations for pain relief and positive and negative outcomes of differing pain relief medications. Further research should pursue applicability of online deliberative engagement as a method to elicit patient values and preferences.
Keywords: adult; analgesics; dentistry; opioid; participation; public health; stakeholder.