Literature DB >> 23529716

Patient preferences versus physicians' judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making?

Axel C Mühlbacher1, Christin Juhnke.   

Abstract

Clinicians and public health experts make evidence-based decisions for individual patients, patient groups and even whole populations. In addition to the principles of internal and external validity (evidence), patient preferences must also influence decision making. Great Britain, Australia and Germany are currently discussing methods and procedures for valuing patient preferences in regulatory (authorization and pricing) and in health policy decision making. However, many questions remain on how to best balance patient and public preferences with physicians' judgement in healthcare and health policy decision making. For example, how to define evaluation criteria regarding the perceived value from a patient's perspective? How do physicians' fact-based opinions also reflect patients' preferences based on personal values? Can empirically grounded theories explain differences between patients and experts-and, if so, how? This article aims to identify and compare studies that used different preference elicitation methods and to highlight differences between patient and physician preferences. Therefore, studies comparing patient preferences and physician judgements were analysed in a review. This review shows a limited amount of literature analysing and comparing patient and physician preferences for healthcare interventions and outcomes. Moreover, it shows that methodology used to compare preferences is diverse. A total of 46 studies used the following methods-discrete-choice experiments, conjoint analyses, standard gamble, time trade-offs and paired comparisons-to compare patient preferences with doctor judgements. All studies were published between 1985 and 2011. Most studies reveal a disparity between the preferences of actual patients and those of physicians. For most conditions, physicians underestimated the impact of intervention characteristics on patients' decision making. Differentiated perceptions may reflect ineffective communication between the provider and the patient. This in turn may keep physicians from fully appreciating the impact of certain medical conditions on patient preferences. Because differences exist between physicians' judgement and patient preferences, it is important to incorporate the needs and wants of the patient into treatment decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23529716     DOI: 10.1007/s40258-013-0023-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy        ISSN: 1175-5652            Impact factor:   2.561


  57 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.  Factors that Influence Treatment and Non-treatment Decision Making Among Individuals with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Integrative Review.

Authors:  Kendra J Kamp; Kelly Brittain
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Chronic pain patients' treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment.

Authors:  Axel C Mühlbacher; Uwe Junker; Christin Juhnke; Edgar Stemmler; Thomas Kohlmann; Friedhelm Leverkus; Matthias Nübling
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-06-21

4.  Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life with Sunitinib Versus Placebo for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Results From an International Phase III Trial.

Authors:  Aaron Vinik; Andrew Bottomley; Beata Korytowsky; Yung-Jue Bang; Jean-Luc Raoul; Juan W Valle; Peter Metrakos; Dieter Hörsch; Rajiv Mundayat; Arlene Reisman; Zhixiao Wang; Richard C Chao; Eric Raymond
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 4.493

5.  Core domains of shared decision-making during psychiatric visits: scientific and preference-based discussions.

Authors:  Sadaaki Fukui; Marianne S Matthias; Michelle P Salyers
Journal:  Adm Policy Ment Health       Date:  2015-01

6.  Reduce mortality risk above all else: a discrete-choice experiment in acute coronary syndrome patients.

Authors:  Axel C Mühlbacher; Susanne Bethge
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  How should family physicians provide physical activity advice? Qualitative study to inform the design of an e-health intervention.

Authors:  Lindsay Reddeman; Nicole Bourgeois; Emily Nicholas Angl; Mike Heinrich; Leah Hillier; Holly Finn; Beth Bosiak; Payal Agarwal; Robin Mawson; Roni Propp; Noah M Ivers
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 3.275

8.  Treatment Preferences in Germany Differ Among Apheresis Patients with Severe Hypercholesterolemia.

Authors:  Axel C Mühlbacher; Andrew Sadler; Franz-Werner Dippel; Christin Juhnke
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  When Patients Write the Guidelines: Patient Panel Recommendations for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel; Amy S Miller; Kelly Clayton; Rachelle Crow-Hercher; Shantana Hazel; Britt Johnson; Leslie Rott; Whitney White; Carole Wiedmeyer; Victor M Montori; Jasvinder A Singh; W Benjamin Nowell
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 4.794

Review 10.  The patient perspective of diabetes care: a systematic review of stated preference research.

Authors:  Lill-Brith von Arx; Trine Kjeer
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.