Research methodologies for eliciting patients' preferences in invasive procedures: a scoping review.
Patient preferences
Preference elicitation
Preference exploration
Journal
Langenbeck's archives of surgery
ISSN: 1435-2451
Titre abrégé: Langenbecks Arch Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9808285
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Oct 2024
29 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
13
09
2024
accepted:
17
10
2024
medline:
29
10
2024
pubmed:
29
10
2024
entrez:
29
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Endpoints that patients and clinicians consider important may differ based on patients' preferences and values. Several methods are available to elicit patient preferences in a succinct and methodologically valid manner. We conducted a scoping review of methods used to elicit patient preferences in invasive procedures to provide a framework for researchers and clinicians to incorporate these measures into future efforts. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and health and psychological instruments database were searched from inception until September 2020. Articles that examined patient preferences for any invasive procedure were eligible for inclusion. Selection and extraction were completed in duplicate. Preference elicitation methods were identified and summarized. Three hundred ninety-four articles (n = 76,921 patients) were included representing several surgical specialties. Of included studies, 11.7% (n = 46) used both quantitative and qualitative methods, 81.2% (n = 320) used quantitative methods only, and 7.1% (n = 28) used qualitative methods only to elicit preferences. The most frequently employed quantitative method to elicit preferences was simple choice selection, while one-on-one interviews with participants was the most frequently used qualitative method. Preference elicitation was the primary outcome in 74.6% (n = 294) of included studies. There are several methods to elicit patient preferences in surgical research. Qualitative methods are valuable for exploring views and generating consensus statements. Quantitative methods are better suited for assessing relative preferences, establishing preference thresholds, or ascertaining the presence of preferences. The choice of method should align with the specific research objectives.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Endpoints that patients and clinicians consider important may differ based on patients' preferences and values. Several methods are available to elicit patient preferences in a succinct and methodologically valid manner.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a scoping review of methods used to elicit patient preferences in invasive procedures to provide a framework for researchers and clinicians to incorporate these measures into future efforts.
METHODS
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and health and psychological instruments database were searched from inception until September 2020. Articles that examined patient preferences for any invasive procedure were eligible for inclusion. Selection and extraction were completed in duplicate. Preference elicitation methods were identified and summarized.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Three hundred ninety-four articles (n = 76,921 patients) were included representing several surgical specialties. Of included studies, 11.7% (n = 46) used both quantitative and qualitative methods, 81.2% (n = 320) used quantitative methods only, and 7.1% (n = 28) used qualitative methods only to elicit preferences. The most frequently employed quantitative method to elicit preferences was simple choice selection, while one-on-one interviews with participants was the most frequently used qualitative method. Preference elicitation was the primary outcome in 74.6% (n = 294) of included studies.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
There are several methods to elicit patient preferences in surgical research. Qualitative methods are valuable for exploring views and generating consensus statements. Quantitative methods are better suited for assessing relative preferences, establishing preference thresholds, or ascertaining the presence of preferences. The choice of method should align with the specific research objectives.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39470867
doi: 10.1007/s00423-024-03520-8
pii: 10.1007/s00423-024-03520-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
328Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T et al (2014) Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res Feb 26:14:89
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89
Chhabra KR, Sacks GD, Dimick JB (2017) Surgical decision making: challenging Dogma and incorporating patient preferences. JAMA Jan 24(4):357–358
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.18719
Soekhai V, Whichello C, Levitan B et al (2019) Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review. Drug Discov Today Jul 24(7):1324–1331
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2019.05.001
Huls SPI, Whichello CL, van Exel J, Uyl-de Groot CA, de Bekker-Grob EW (2019) What is next for patient preferences in Health Technology Assessment? A systematic review of the challenges. Value Health Nov 22(11):1318–1328
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1930
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W et al (2018) PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med Oct 2(7):467–473
doi: 10.7326/M18-0850
Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C et al (2001) Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 5(5):1–186
doi: 10.3310/hta5050
pubmed: 11262422
Innovation VH Covidence systematic review software. www.covidence.org
Ryan F, Coughlan MJ, Cronin P (2009) Interviewing in qualitative research: the one-to-one interview. Int J Therapy Rehabilitation 16:309–314
doi: 10.12968/ijtr.2009.16.6.42433
Nyumba T, Wilson, Derrick C, Mukherjee N (2018) The use of focus group discussion methodology: insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol Evol 01/11:9:20–32
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12860
Noble H, Smith J (2015) Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs Apr 18(2):34–35
doi: 10.1136/eb-2015-102054
Frances R, Coughlan M, Cronin P (2009) Interviewing in qualitative research. Int J Therapy Rehabilitation 06/01:16:309–314
Morgan DL, Ataie J, Carder P, Hoffman K (2013) Introducing dyadic interviews as a method for collecting qualitative data. Qual Health Res Sep 23(9):1276–1284
doi: 10.1177/1049732313501889
Humphrey L, Willgoss T, Trigg A et al (2017) A comparison of three methods to generate a conceptual understanding of a disease based on the patients’ perspective. J Patient Rep Outcomes 1(1):9
doi: 10.1186/s41687-017-0013-6
pubmed: 29757313
pmcid: 5934934
Wilson J, Mandich A, Magalhaes L, Concept Mapping (2016) A dynamic, individualized and qualitative method for eliciting meaning. Qual Health Res Jul 26(8):1151–1161
doi: 10.1177/1049732315616623
Senapati R, Prusty A, Padhy C (2020) An overview of Q methodology: process, Application and challenges. 06/30:24772–24778
Corr S (2001) An introduction to Q methodology, a research technique. Br J Occup Therapy 2001/06/01 64(6):293–297
doi: 10.1177/030802260106400605
Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H (2000) Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs Oct 32(4):1008–1015
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x
Olsen J (2019) The nominal group technique (NGT) as a Tool for Facilitating Pan-disability Focus groups and as a New Method for quantifying changes in qualitative data. Int J Qualitative Methods 07/26:18:160940691986604
Scuffham PA, Ratcliffe J, Kendall E et al (2014) Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens’ juries. BMJ Open May 2(5):e005437
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005437
Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG et al (2016) Statistical methods for the analysis of Discrete Choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health Jun 19(4):300–315
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
Lancaster KJ (1966) A New Approach to Consumer Theory. J Political Econ 1966/04/01 74(2):132–157
doi: 10.1086/259131
Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D et al (2011) Conjoint analysis applications in health–a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health Jun 14(4):403–413
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013
Ryan M, Farrar S (2000) Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ Jun 3(7248):1530–1533
doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530
Lancsar E, Louviere J (2008) Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics 26(8):661–677
doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004
pubmed: 18620460
Schmidt K, Aumann I, Hollander I, Damm K, von der Schulenburg JM (2015) Applying the Analytic Hierarchy process in healthcare research: a systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak Dec 24:15:112
doi: 10.1186/s12911-015-0234-7
Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D (2002) Health utility estimation. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Apr 2(2):99–108
doi: 10.1586/14737167.2.2.99
Lugner AK, Krabbe PFM (2020) An overview of the time trade-off method: concept, foundation, and the evaluation of distorting factors in putting a value on health. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Aug 20(4):331–342
doi: 10.1080/14737167.2020.1779062
Guo J, Konetzka RT, Dale W (2014) Using time trade-off methods to assess preferences over health care delivery options: a feasibility study. Value Health Mar 17(2):302–305
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.11.010
Nord E (1995) The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Mak Jul-Sep 15(3):201–208
doi: 10.1177/0272989X9501500302
Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Williams JI, Levy L, Naylor CD (1996) Using a trade-off technique to assess patients’ treatment preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Med Decis Mak Jul-Sep 16(3):262–282
doi: 10.1177/0272989X9601600311
Llewellyn-Thomas HA (1997) Investigating patients’ preferences for different treatment options. Can J Nurs Res Fall 29(3):45–64
Gafni A (1991) Willingness-to-pay as a measure of benefits. Relevant questions in the context of public decisionmaking about health care programs. Med Care Dec 29(12):1246–1252
doi: 10.1097/00005650-199112000-00007
Ali S, Ronaldson S (2012) Ordinal preference elicitation methods in health economics and health services research: using discrete choice experiments and ranking methods. Br Med Bull Sep 103(1):21–44
doi: 10.1093/bmb/lds020
Bryson N, Ngwenyama OK, Mobolurin A (1994) A qualitative discriminant process for scoring and ranking in group support systems. Information Processing & Management. /05/01/ 1994;30(3):389–405
Flynn TN, Marley AAJ (2014) Best-worst scaling: theory and methods. 178:201
Stevens KJ, McCabe CJ, Brazier JE (2006) Mapping between Visual Analogue Scale and Standard Gamble data; results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey. Health Econ May 15(5):527–533
doi: 10.1002/hec.1076