Selena Russo1, Chiara Jongerius2, Flavia Faccio3, Silvia F M Pizzoli3, Cathy Anne Pinto4, Jorien Veldwijk5, Rosanne Janssens6, Gwenda Simons7, Marie Falahee7, Esther de Bekker-Grob8, Isabelle Huys6, Douwe Postmus9, Ulrik Kihlbom10, Gabriella Pravettoni3. 1. Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Discipline of Paediatrics, School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: s.russo@unsw.edu.au. 2. Department of Medical Psychology-Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Pharmacoepidemiology, Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA. 5. Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Center, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 7. Rheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 8. Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Center, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 9. University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 10. Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research has been mainly focused on how to elicit patient preferences, with less attention on why patients form certain preferences. OBJECTIVES: To assess which psychological instruments are currently used and which psychological constructs are known to have an impact on patients' preferences and health-related decisions including the formation of preferences and preference heterogeneity. METHODS: A systematic database search was undertaken to identify relevant studies. From the selected studies, the following information was extracted: study objectives, study population, design, psychological dimensions investigated, and instruments used to measure psychological variables. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were identified that described the association between a psychological construct, measured using a validated instrument, and patients' preferences or health-related decisions. We identified 33 psychological instruments and 18 constructs, and categorized the instruments into 5 groups, namely, motivational factors, cognitive factors, individual differences, emotion and mood, and health beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an overview of the psychological factors and related instruments in the context of patients' preferences and decisions in healthcare settings. Our results indicate that measures of health literacy, numeracy, and locus of control have an impact on health-related preferences and decisions. Within the category of constructs that could explain preference and decision heterogeneity, health locus of control is a strong predictor of decisions in several healthcare contexts and is useful to consider when designing a patient preference study. Future research should continue to explore the association of psychological constructs with preference formation and heterogeneity to build on these initial recommendations.
BACKGROUND: Research has been mainly focused on how to elicit patient preferences, with less attention on why patients form certain preferences. OBJECTIVES: To assess which psychological instruments are currently used and which psychological constructs are known to have an impact on patients' preferences and health-related decisions including the formation of preferences and preference heterogeneity. METHODS: A systematic database search was undertaken to identify relevant studies. From the selected studies, the following information was extracted: study objectives, study population, design, psychological dimensions investigated, and instruments used to measure psychological variables. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were identified that described the association between a psychological construct, measured using a validated instrument, and patients' preferences or health-related decisions. We identified 33 psychological instruments and 18 constructs, and categorized the instruments into 5 groups, namely, motivational factors, cognitive factors, individual differences, emotion and mood, and health beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an overview of the psychological factors and related instruments in the context of patients' preferences and decisions in healthcare settings. Our results indicate that measures of health literacy, numeracy, and locus of control have an impact on health-related preferences and decisions. Within the category of constructs that could explain preference and decision heterogeneity, health locus of control is a strong predictor of decisions in several healthcare contexts and is useful to consider when designing a patient preference study. Future research should continue to explore the association of psychological constructs with preference formation and heterogeneity to build on these initial recommendations.
Authors: Giovanni Mauri; Franco Orsi; Serena Carriero; Paolo Della Vigna; Elvio De Fiori; Dario Monzani; Gabriella Pravettoni; Enrica Grosso; Marco F Manzoni; Mohssen Ansarin; Gioacchino Giugliano Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Ian P Smith; Rachael L DiSantostefano; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Bennett Levitan; Conny Berlin; Jorien Veldwijk; G Ardine de Wit Journal: Patient Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 3.883