Literature DB >> 16706568

Accounting for tastes: a German perspective on the inclusion of patient preferences in healthcare.

Florian Vogt1, David L B Schwappach, John F P Bridges.   

Abstract

Internationally, there has been a movement in medicine to better involve patients in decision making, whether it be at the individual or aggregate level. However, the German health sector has been slow to understand and accommodate the preferences of patients. This paper discusses the reasons why and attempts to highlight some of the consequences of not involving patients in healthcare decision making within the German context. We argue that a fundamental paradigm shift at all levels of the German health system, including better doctor/patient communication, is necessary for more choices to be available to patients and to better reflect patient preferences in centralised healthcare decision making. The newly created German health technology assessment agency (IQWiG; Institute for Quality and Economic Efficiency in the Health Care Sector) has indicated that they are interested in focusing on patient preferences, but there is a need for them to clarify what methods they deem suitable for doing so.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16706568     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624050-00001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  16 in total

1.  Allies or enemies? Evidence-based medicine and consumer choice.

Authors:  H Bastian
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2000-01-03       Impact factor: 7.738

2.  Patient preferences and health disparities.

Authors:  J N Katz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-09-26       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where's the 'extra' in extra-welfarism?

Authors:  Stephen Birch; Cam Donaldson
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 4.  The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions--challenges for doctors.

Authors:  Rebecca E Say; Richard Thomson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-06

5.  [A model project on shared decision-making in the treatment of arterial hypertension].

Authors:  A Deinzer; T Hegemann; R Veelken; R E Schmieder
Journal:  MMW Fortschr Med       Date:  2004-04-15

6.  Discrete-choice experiment to measure patient preferences for the surgical management of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  G Salkeld; M Solomon; P Butow; L Short
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  [Patients' competences. What do patients need to know and be able to do?].

Authors:  C Kranich
Journal:  Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.513

8.  What makes an error unacceptable? A factorial survey on the disclosure of medical errors.

Authors:  David L B Schwappach; Christian M Koeck
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.038

9.  Preferences for disclosure: the case of bedside rationing.

Authors:  David L B Schwappach; Christian M Koeck
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  Patient preferences for acute pain treatment.

Authors:  T J Gan; D A Lubarsky; E M Flood; T Thanh; J Mauskopf; T Mayne; C Chen
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2004-03-05       Impact factor: 9.166

View more
  8 in total

1.  Things are Looking up Since We Started Listening to Patients: Trends in the Application of Conjoint Analysis in Health 1982-2007.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Elizabeth T Kinter; Lillian Kidane; Rebekah R Heinzen; Colleen McCormick
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Patients' Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines: An Adaptive Conjoint Analysis Approach.

Authors:  Merja Halme; Kari Linden; Kimmo Kääriä
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Why should regulators consider using patient preferences in benefit-risk assessment?

Authors:  Janine A van Til; Maarten J Ijzerman
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Conjoint analysis of French and German parents' willingness to pay for meningococcal vaccine.

Authors:  David Bishai; Roger Brice; Isabelle Girod; Aneta Saleh; Jenifer Ehreth
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  A test of concordance between patient and psychiatrist valuations of multiple treatment goals for schizophrenia.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Lara Slawik; Annette Schmeding; Jens Reimer; Dieter Naber; Olaf Kuhnigk
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Can patients diagnosed with schizophrenia complete choice-based conjoint analysis tasks?

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Elizabeth T Kinter; Annette Schmeding; Ina Rudolph; Axel Mühlbacher
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Lean systems approaches to health technology assessment: a patient-focused alternative to cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review.

Authors:  Susan M Joy; Emily Little; Nisa M Maruthur; Tanjala S Purnell; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.981

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.