Interpreting patient values and preferences in clinical practice guideline development: distinguishing reliance on physician judgment from treatment outcome preferences – an exploratory multicenter study in patients with anal cancer

Background: Patient values and preferences are important in clinical practice guideline development, but responses indicating reliance on physician judgment may be difficult to interpret. We examined whether such reliance can coexist with explicit preferences about treatment outcomes and trade-offs.Methods: We conducted an exploratory secondary analysis of a 22-item cross-sectional survey completed by 14 adults with anal cancer recruited from four hospitals during guideline development. The survey assessed decision-making participation, responses to specific clinical scenarios, rankings of six treatment goals, and treatment-acceptance thresholds. Ten scenario items included the option “I would follow my treating physician’s judgment.” Analyses were descriptive and emphasized within-participant response patterns.Results: Ten participants (71.4%) generally preferred shared decision-making, yet 11 selected physician judgment in at least one scenario. All 11 completed a full ranking of treatment goals, and 9 completed both trade-off threshold items. Among seven participants who relied on physician judgment for salvage treatment, all completed the ranking and six completed both thresholds; five required at least a 20% survival improvement to accept surgery resulting in a permanent stoma. Although permanent stoma ranked fourth among six goals overall, 11 of 13 respondents required at least a 20% survival improvement to accept such surgery.Conclusions: Reliance on physician judgment did not necessarily indicate an absence of patient preferences. Guideline-related preference studies should distinguish preferences for the decision process, general priorities among outcomes, and context-specific benefit-risk trade-offs. Responses indicating reliance on physician judgment should not automatically be treated as “no preference” or missing information.