Literature DB >> 22273271

Assessing Preferences Regarding Healthcare Interventions that Involve Non-Health Outcomes: An Overview of Clinical Studies.

Brent C Opmeer1, Corianne A J M de Borgie, Ben W J Mol, Patrick M M Bossuyt.   

Abstract

Decision making in healthcare often involves decision alternatives that vary on different dimensions in conflicting ways, such as health benefits and costs. In such cases, it is not always easy to identify the best option, as a trade-off has to be made. In preference studies, patients evaluate health states or healthcare strategies reflecting this trade-off. A focus that is restricted to only health outcomes in decision making may be too narrow. Patients also derive utility, or experience disutility, from healthcare processes themselves. A range of techniques is available for eliciting valuations of patients for these processes and other non-health outcomes. At present, it is unclear to what extent, and how, clinical evaluation studies have taken into account non-health outcomes. We performed a systematic review of trade-off and valuation studies to assess the extent to which valuations of process and non-health outcomes have actually been elicited from patients, in what specialty areas, and what techniques were used.We identified 567 articles that addressed patients' preferences involving non-health outcomes. The main therapeutic fields were oncology (17%), gynecology/obstetrics (11%), pulmonology (11%), cardiology (7%), gastroenterology (6%), and infectious diseases (6%). There was an absolute increase from the early 1980s (a handful of studies published each year) to recent years (almost 100 publications per year). We noticed a strong increase in elicitation techniques aimed at identification of determinants of patients' preferences.The number of studies addressing preferences for medical dilemmas involving non-health outcomes is steadily increasing and covers the whole spectrum of health-related interventions across all medical fields. A diversification in application fields as well as in research methods was observed, reflecting a lack of standardization. There is a need for methodological standards and evidence-based criteria to evaluate the methodological quality and clinical validity of studies that address preferences for dilemmas involving non-health outcomes.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 22273271     DOI: 10.2165/11531750-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient        ISSN: 1178-1653            Impact factor:   3.883


  10 in total

1.  Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation.

Authors:  M Ryan
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Judging goodness must come before judging quality--but what is the good of health care?

Authors:  G Mooney
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.038

3.  Issues in methodological research: perspectives from researchers and commissioners.

Authors:  R J Lilford; A Richardson; A Stevens; R Fitzpatrick; S Edwards; F Rock; J L Hutton
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.014

4.  iMPACT3: Internet-based development and administration of utility elicitation protocols.

Authors:  L A Lenert; A Sturley; M E Watson
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring.

Authors:  Werner B F Brouwer; N Job A van Exel; Bernard van den Berg; Geertruidis A M van den Bos; Marc A Koopmanschap
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2005-01-08       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 6.  Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies.

Authors:  M M G Leeflang; R J P M Scholten; A W S Rutjes; J B Reitsma; P M M Bossuyt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  C Donaldson; P Shackley
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  Swedish women's interest in home birth and in-hospital birth center care.

Authors:  Ingegerd Hildingsson; Ulla Waldenström; Ingela Rådestad
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.689

9.  HPV triage testing or repeat Pap smear for the management of atypical squamous cells (ASCUS) on Pap smear: is there evidence of process utility?

Authors:  Kirsten Howard; Glenn Salkeld; Kirsten McCaffery; Les Irwig
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  Systemic methotrexate therapy versus laparoscopic salpingostomy in tubal pregnancy. Part II. Patient preferences for systemic methotrexate.

Authors:  P T Nieuwkerk; P J Hajenius; F Van der Veen; W M Ankum; W Wijker; P M Bossuyt
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 7.329

  10 in total
  7 in total

Review 1.  A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

Authors:  Inger M Janssen; Ansgar Gerhardus; Milly A Schröer-Günther; Fülöp Scheibler
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 2.  Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: a systematic review of empirical studies.

Authors:  Victoria K Brennan; Simon Dixon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence.

Authors:  Richard De Abreu Lourenco; Marion Haas; Jane Hall; Rosalie Viney
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Patient-Important Outcomes in the Long-Term Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: A Mixed-Methods Approach Investigating Relative Preferences and a Proposed Taxonomy.

Authors:  Øystein Eiring; Magne Nylenna; Kari Nytrøen
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 5.  Conceptualising 'Benefits Beyond Health' in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis.

Authors:  Lidia Engel; Stirling Bryan; David G T Whitehurst
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders.

Authors:  Øystein Eiring; Brynjar Fowels Landmark; Endre Aas; Glenn Salkeld; Magne Nylenna; Kari Nytrøen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  The development of PubMed search strategies for patient preferences for treatment outcomes.

Authors:  Ralph van Hoorn; Wietske Kievit; Andrew Booth; Kati Mozygemba; Kristin Bakke Lysdahl; Pietro Refolo; Dario Sacchini; Ansgar Gerhardus; Gert Jan van der Wilt; Marcia Tummers
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 4.615

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.