Understanding Patients' Preferences: A Systematic Review of Psychological Instruments Used in Patients' Preference and Decision Studies.


Journal

Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
ISSN: 1524-4733
Titre abrégé: Value Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100883818

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2019
Historique:
received: 17 04 2018
revised: 25 09 2018
accepted: 20 12 2018
entrez: 13 4 2019
pubmed: 13 4 2019
medline: 29 5 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Research has been mainly focused on how to elicit patient preferences, with less attention on why patients form certain preferences. To assess which psychological instruments are currently used and which psychological constructs are known to have an impact on patients' preferences and health-related decisions including the formation of preferences and preference heterogeneity. A systematic database search was undertaken to identify relevant studies. From the selected studies, the following information was extracted: study objectives, study population, design, psychological dimensions investigated, and instruments used to measure psychological variables. Thirty-three studies were identified that described the association between a psychological construct, measured using a validated instrument, and patients' preferences or health-related decisions. We identified 33 psychological instruments and 18 constructs, and categorized the instruments into 5 groups, namely, motivational factors, cognitive factors, individual differences, emotion and mood, and health beliefs. This review provides an overview of the psychological factors and related instruments in the context of patients' preferences and decisions in healthcare settings. Our results indicate that measures of health literacy, numeracy, and locus of control have an impact on health-related preferences and decisions. Within the category of constructs that could explain preference and decision heterogeneity, health locus of control is a strong predictor of decisions in several healthcare contexts and is useful to consider when designing a patient preference study. Future research should continue to explore the association of psychological constructs with preference formation and heterogeneity to build on these initial recommendations.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Research has been mainly focused on how to elicit patient preferences, with less attention on why patients form certain preferences.
OBJECTIVES
To assess which psychological instruments are currently used and which psychological constructs are known to have an impact on patients' preferences and health-related decisions including the formation of preferences and preference heterogeneity.
METHODS
A systematic database search was undertaken to identify relevant studies. From the selected studies, the following information was extracted: study objectives, study population, design, psychological dimensions investigated, and instruments used to measure psychological variables.
RESULTS
Thirty-three studies were identified that described the association between a psychological construct, measured using a validated instrument, and patients' preferences or health-related decisions. We identified 33 psychological instruments and 18 constructs, and categorized the instruments into 5 groups, namely, motivational factors, cognitive factors, individual differences, emotion and mood, and health beliefs.
CONCLUSIONS
This review provides an overview of the psychological factors and related instruments in the context of patients' preferences and decisions in healthcare settings. Our results indicate that measures of health literacy, numeracy, and locus of control have an impact on health-related preferences and decisions. Within the category of constructs that could explain preference and decision heterogeneity, health locus of control is a strong predictor of decisions in several healthcare contexts and is useful to consider when designing a patient preference study. Future research should continue to explore the association of psychological constructs with preference formation and heterogeneity to build on these initial recommendations.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30975401
pii: S1098-3015(19)30056-7
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.12.007
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

491-501

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Selena Russo (S)

Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Discipline of Paediatrics, School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: s.russo@unsw.edu.au.

Chiara Jongerius (C)

Department of Medical Psychology-Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Flavia Faccio (F)

Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Silvia F M Pizzoli (SFM)

Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Cathy Anne Pinto (CA)

Department of Pharmacoepidemiology, Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Jorien Veldwijk (J)

Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Center, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Rosanne Janssens (R)

Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Gwenda Simons (G)

Rheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Marie Falahee (M)

Rheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Esther de Bekker-Grob (E)

Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Center, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Isabelle Huys (I)

Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Douwe Postmus (D)

University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Ulrik Kihlbom (U)

Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Gabriella Pravettoni (G)

Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH