Samantha MacLean1, Sohail Mulla2, Elie A Akl3, Milosz Jankowski4, Per Olav Vandvik5, Shanil Ebrahim2, Shelley McLeod6, Neera Bhatnagar7, Gordon H Guyatt2. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. Electronic address: macleast@mcmaster.ca. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland. 5. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services and Department of Medicine Gjøvik, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Gjøvik, Norway. 6. Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada. 7. Department of Health Sciences Library, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Development of clinical practice guidelines involves making trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative management strategies. Although the relative value of health states to patients should provide the basis for these trade-offs, few guidelines have systematically summarized the relevant evidence. We conducted a systematic review relating to values and preferences of patients considering antithrombotic therapy. METHODS: We included studies examining patient preferences for alternative approaches to antithrombotic prophylaxis and studies that examined, in the context of antithrombotic prophylaxis or treatment, how patients value alternative health states and experiences with treatment. We conducted a systematic search and compiled structured summaries of the results. Steps in the process that involved judgment were conducted in duplicate. RESULTS: We identified 48 eligible studies. Sixteen dealt with atrial fibrillation, five with VTE, four with stroke or myocardial infarction prophylaxis, six with thrombolysis in acute stroke or myocardial infarction, and 17 with burden of antithrombotic treatment. CONCLUSION: Patient values and preferences regarding thromboprophylaxis treatment appear to be highly variable. Participant responses may depend on their prior experience with the treatments or health outcomes considered as well as on the methods used for preference elicitation. It should be standard for clinical practice guidelines to conduct systematic reviews of patient values and preferences in the specific content area.
BACKGROUND: Development of clinical practice guidelines involves making trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative management strategies. Although the relative value of health states to patients should provide the basis for these trade-offs, few guidelines have systematically summarized the relevant evidence. We conducted a systematic review relating to values and preferences of patients considering antithrombotic therapy. METHODS: We included studies examining patient preferences for alternative approaches to antithrombotic prophylaxis and studies that examined, in the context of antithrombotic prophylaxis or treatment, how patients value alternative health states and experiences with treatment. We conducted a systematic search and compiled structured summaries of the results. Steps in the process that involved judgment were conducted in duplicate. RESULTS: We identified 48 eligible studies. Sixteen dealt with atrial fibrillation, five with VTE, four with stroke or myocardial infarction prophylaxis, six with thrombolysis in acute stroke or myocardial infarction, and 17 with burden of antithrombotic treatment. CONCLUSION:Patient values and preferences regarding thromboprophylaxis treatment appear to be highly variable. Participant responses may depend on their prior experience with the treatments or health outcomes considered as well as on the methods used for preference elicitation. It should be standard for clinical practice guidelines to conduct systematic reviews of patient values and preferences in the specific content area.
Authors: Mirjam Locadia; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Peep F M Stalmeier; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Carlo J J van Dongen; Saskia Middeldorp; Ivan Bank; Jan van der Meer; Karly Hamulyák; Martin H Prins Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: M M Koopman; P Prandoni; F Piovella; P A Ockelford; D P Brandjes; J van der Meer; A S Gallus; G Simonneau; C H Chesterman; M H Prins Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Richard G Thomson; Martin P Eccles; I Nick Steen; Jane Greenaway; Lynne Stobbart; Madeleine J Murtagh; Carl R May Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2007-06
Authors: Greg Samsa; David B Matchar; Rowena J Dolor; Ingela Wiklund; Ewa Hedner; Gail Wygant; Ole Hauch; Cheryl Beadle Marple; Roger Edwards Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2004-05-06 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Shannon M Bates; Ian A Greer; Saskia Middeldorp; David L Veenstra; Anne-Marie Prabulos; Per Olav Vandvik Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Elie A Akl; Mark Crowther; Holger J Schünemann; David D Gutterman; Sandra Zelman Lewis Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Shannon M Bates; Roman Jaeschke; Scott M Stevens; Steven Goodacre; Philip S Wells; Matthew D Stevenson; Clive Kearon; Holger J Schunemann; Mark Crowther; Stephen G Pauker; Regina Makdissi; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Susan R Kahn; Wendy Lim; Andrew S Dunn; Mary Cushman; Francesco Dentali; Elie A Akl; Deborah J Cook; Alex A Balekian; Russell C Klein; Hoang Le; Sam Schulman; M Hassan Murad Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: John J You; Daniel E Singer; Patricia A Howard; Deirdre A Lane; Mark H Eckman; Margaret C Fang; Elaine M Hylek; Sam Schulman; Alan S Go; Michael Hughes; Frederick A Spencer; Warren J Manning; Jonathan L Halperin; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Paul Monagle; Anthony K C Chan; Neil A Goldenberg; Rebecca N Ichord; Janna M Journeycake; Ulrike Nowak-Göttl; Sara K Vesely Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Lori-Ann Linkins; Antonio L Dans; Lisa K Moores; Robert Bona; Bruce L Davidson; Sam Schulman; Mark Crowther Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Pablo Alonso-Coello; Sergi Bellmunt; Catherine McGorrian; Sonia S Anand; Randolph Guzman; Michael H Criqui; Elie A Akl; Per Olav Vandvik; Maarten G Lansberg; Gordon H Guyatt; Frederick A Spencer Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Clive Kearon; Elie A Akl; Anthony J Comerota; Paolo Prandoni; Henri Bounameaux; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Michael E Nelson; Philip S Wells; Michael K Gould; Francesco Dentali; Mark Crowther; Susan R Kahn Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410