Literature DB >> 23132890

Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decision making.

Liana Fraenkel1.   

Abstract

Current models of care emphasize the importance of including patients' values in the decision-making process. This is particularly important for decisions for which there are few data supporting a clear strategy or treatment choice. Constructing preferences for complex decisions requires that patients be able to consider multiple trade-offs between specific risks and benefits. Several marketing research techniques have been recently applied to heath care settings to facilitate this process. Most can be programmed to generate patients' preferences or priorities, which can then be used to improve patient-physician communication. In this article, we will describe some of the currently available approaches that have been successfully used in the health care setting. We provide case examples to illustrate the potential value of adopting each of these approaches in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23132890      PMCID: PMC3653614          DOI: 10.1177/1077558712461283

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care Res Rev        ISSN: 1077-5587            Impact factor:   3.929


  25 in total

1.  Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states.

Authors:  X Badia; M Roset; M Herdman
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  A trial for comparing methods for eliciting treatment preferences from men with advanced prostate cancer: results from the initial visit.

Authors:  J Souchek; J R Stacks; B Brody; C M Ashton; R B Giesler; M M Byrne; K Cook; J M Geraci; N P Wray
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Does location matter? A study of the public's preferences for surgical care provision.

Authors:  David L B Schwappach; Thomas J Strasmann
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Women's experiences of and preferences for services after rape in South Africa: interview study.

Authors:  N J Christofides; D Muirhead; R K Jewkes; L Penn-Kekana; D N Conco
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-12-05

5.  Patient preferences for osteoporosis in Spain: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  J Darbà; G Restovic; L Kaskens; M A Balbona; A Carbonell; P Cavero; M Jordana; C Prieto; A Molina; I Padró
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-09-14       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Patients' values for health states associated with hepatitis C and physicians' estimates of those values.

Authors:  S J Cotler; R Patil; R A McNutt; T Speroff; G Banaad-Omiotek; D R Ganger; H Rosenblate; S Kaur; S Cotler; D M Jensen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  What is most important to patients when deciding about colorectal screening?

Authors:  Avlin Imaeda; Danielle Bender; Liana Fraenkel
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-03-23       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Promoting informed choice: transforming health care to dispense knowledge for decision making.

Authors:  Steven H Woolf; Evelyn C Y Chan; Russell Harris; Stacey L Sheridan; Clarence H Braddock; Robert M Kaplan; Alex Krist; Annette M O'Connor; Sean Tunis
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2005-08-16       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Patients' preferences for treatment of hepatitis C.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; Diane Chodkowski; Joseph Lim; Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-07-27       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 10.  A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent.

Authors:  Simon N Whitney; Amy L McGuire; Laurence B McCullough
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-01-06       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  15 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Patient Preferences and Surrogate Decision Making in Neuroscience Intensive Care Units.

Authors:  Xuemei Cai; Jennifer Robinson; Susanne Muehlschlegel; Douglas B White; Robert G Holloway; Kevin N Sheth; Liana Fraenkel; David Y Hwang
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.210

Review 3.  Patient Preferences for Breast Cancer Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

Authors:  Renata Leborato Guerra; Luciana Castaneda; Rita de Cássia Ribeiro de Albuquerque; Camila Belo Tavares Ferreira; Flávia de Miranda Corrêa; Ricardo Ribeiro Alves Fernandes; Liz Maria de Almeida
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  The Diabetes Telephone Study: Design and challenges of a pragmatic cluster randomized trial to improve diabetic peripheral neuropathy treatment.

Authors:  Alyce S Adams; Elizabeth A Bayliss; Julie A Schmittdiel; Andrea Altschuler; Wendy Dyer; Romain Neugebauer; Marc Jaffe; Joseph D Young; Eileen Kim; Richard W Grant
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Feasibility, Validity and Differences in Adolescent and Adult EQ-5D-Y Health State Valuation in Australia and Spain: An Application of Best-Worst Scaling.

Authors:  Kim Dalziel; Max Catchpool; Borja García-Lorenzo; Inigo Gorostiza; Richard Norman; Oliver Rivero-Arias
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Do Decision Aids Benefit Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Emily Bowen; Rabih Nayfe; Nathaniel Milburn; Helen Mayo; M C Reid; Liana Fraenkel; Debra Weiner; Ethan A Halm; Una E Makris
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 3.750

7.  A model to support shared decision making in electronic health records systems.

Authors:  Leslie Lenert; Robert Dunlea; Guilherme Del Fiol; Leslie Kelly Hall
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2014-09-15       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Assessment of Individual Patient Preferences to Inform Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Jennifer Anne Whitty; Liana Fraenkel; Christopher S Saigal; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Dean A Regier; Deborah A Marshall
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  Using discrete choice experiments to develop and deliver patient-centered psychological interventions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Meghan E McGrady; Ahna L H Pai; Lisa A Prosser
Journal:  Health Psychol Rev       Date:  2020-01-22

10.  Does a strategy to promote shared decision-making reduce medical practice variation in the choice of either single or double embryo transfer after in vitro fertilisation? A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Anne E M Brabers; Liset van Dijk; Peter P Groenewegen; Arno M van Peperstraten; Judith D de Jong
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.