Literature DB >> 31937184

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

Meghan E McGrady1,2, Ahna L H Pai1,2, Lisa A Prosser3.   

Abstract

Developing and/or tailoring psychological interventions to align with patient preferences is a critical component of patient-centered care and has the potential to improve patient engagement and treatment outcomes. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a quantitative method of assessing patient preferences that offer numerous strengths (i.e., ability to account for trade-offs), but are not routinely incorporated into health psychology coursework, likely leaving many unaware of the potential benefits of this methodology. To highlight the potential applications of DCEs within health psychology, this systematic review synthesises previous efforts to utilise DCEs to inform the design of patient-centered psychological care, defined as interventions targeting psychological (e.g., depression, anxiety) or behavioural health (e.g., pain management, adherence) concerns. Literature searches were conducted in March 2017 and November 2019 for articles reporting on DCEs using the terms 'discrete choice', 'conjoint', or 'stated preference'. Thirty-nine articles met all inclusion criteria and used DCEs to understand patient preferences regarding psychosocial clinical services (n = 12), lifestyle behaviour change interventions (n = 11), HIV prevention and/or intervention services (n = 10), disease self-management programmes (n = 4), or other interventions (n = 2). Clinical implications as well as limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Psychological intervention; behavioural intervention; discrete choice experiment

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31937184      PMCID: PMC7373669          DOI: 10.1080/17437199.2020.1715813

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Psychol Rev        ISSN: 1743-7199


  68 in total

1.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force.

Authors:  A Brett Hauber; Juan Marcos González; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Thomas Prior; Deborah A Marshall; Charles Cunningham; Maarten J IJzerman; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 5.725

2.  Preferences for support services among adolescents and young adults with cancer or a blood disorder: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Stephen Goodall; Madeleine King; Jane Ewing; Narelle Smith; Patricia Kenny
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 2.980

3.  Methods to Improve the Selection and Tailoring of Implementation Strategies.

Authors:  Byron J Powell; Rinad S Beidas; Cara C Lewis; Gregory A Aarons; J Curtis McMillen; Enola K Proctor; David S Mandell
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.505

Review 4.  Improving the quality of discrete-choice experiments in health: how can we assess validity and reliability?

Authors:  Ellen M Janssen; Deborah A Marshall; A Brett Hauber; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2017-10-23       Impact factor: 2.217

5.  Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decision making.

Authors:  Liana Fraenkel
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2012-11-06       Impact factor: 3.929

6.  Veterans' preferences for tobacco treatment in primary care: A discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  David A Katz; Christine Hamlin; Mark W Vander Weg; Kathleen M Grant; Kenda R Stewart Steffensmeier; Monica Paez; Sarah T Hawley; Gary Gaeth
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2019-10-04

7.  The value of different aspects of person-centred care: a series of discrete choice experiments in people with long-term conditions.

Authors:  Christopher D Burton; Vikki A Entwistle; Alison M Elliott; Nicolas Krucien; Terry Porteous; Mandy Ryan
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-04-26       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Type 2 diabetes patients' preferences and willingness to pay for lifestyle programs: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Jorien Veldwijk; Mattijs S Lambooij; Paul F van Gils; Jeroen N Struijs; Henriëtte A Smit; G Ardine de Wit
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  HIV Self-Testing in Lusaka Province, Zambia: Acceptability, Comprehension of Testing Instructions, and Individual Preferences for Self-Test Kit Distribution in a Population-Based Sample of Adolescents and Adults.

Authors:  Arianna Zanolini; Jenala Chipungu; Michael J Vinikoor; Samuel Bosomprah; Mazuba Mafwenko; Charles B Holmes; Harsha Thirumurthy
Journal:  AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses       Date:  2017-11-17       Impact factor: 2.205

10.  Phone Messaging to Prompt Physical Activity and Social Support Among Low-Income Latino Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Pilot Study.

Authors:  Magaly Ramirez; Shinyi Wu
Journal:  JMIR Diabetes       Date:  2017-06-06
View more
  1 in total

1.  Preferences for Attributes of Initial COVID-19 Diagnosis in the United States and China During the Pandemic: Discrete Choice Experiment With Propensity Score Matching.

Authors:  Yimin Zhang; Taoran Liu; Zonglin He; Casper J P Zhang; Wai-Kit Ming; Sze Ngai Chan; Babatunde Akinwunmi; Jian Huang; Tak-Hap Wong
Journal:  JMIR Public Health Surveill       Date:  2022-08-16
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.