Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Pharmaceutical Medicine 4/2014

01.08.2014 | Systematic Review

A Systematic Review to Identify the Use of Preference Elicitation Methods in Healthcare Decision Making

verfasst von: Marieke G. M. Weernink, Sarah I. M. Janus, Janine A. van Til, Dennis W. Raisch, Jeannette G. van Manen, Maarten J. IJzerman

Erschienen in: Pharmaceutical Medicine | Ausgabe 4/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

Preference elicitation methods help to increase patient-centred medical decision making (MDM) by measuring benefit and value. Preferences can be applied in decisions regarding reimbursement, including health technology assessment (HTA); market access, including benefit–risk assessment (BRA); and clinical care. These three decision contexts have different requirements for use and elicitation of preferences.

Objectives

This systematic review identified studies using preference elicitation methods and summarized methodological and practical characteristics within the requirements of the three contexts.

Methods

The search terms included those related to MDM and patient preferences. Only articles with original data from quantitative preference elicitation methods were included.

Results

The selected articles (n = 322) included 379 preference elicitation methods, comprising matching methods [MM] (n = 71, 18.7 %), discrete choice experiments [DCEs] (n = 96, 25.3 %), multi-criteria decision analysis (n = 12, 3.2 %) and other methods (n = 200, 52.8 %; i.e. rating scales, which provide estimates inconsistent with utility theory). Most publications of preference elicitation methods had an intended use in clinical decisions (n = 134, 40 %). Fewer preference studies had an intended use in HTA (n = 68, 20 %) or BRA (n = 12, 4 %). In clinical decisions, rating, ranking, visual analogue scales and direct choice are used most often. In HTA, DCEs and MM are both used frequently, and elicitation of preferences in BRA was limited to DCEs.

Conclusion

Relatively simple preference methods are often adequate in clinical decisions because they are easy to administer and have a low cognitive burden. MM and DCE fulfil the requirements of HTA and BRA but are complex for respondents. No preference elicitation methods with a low cognitive burden could adequately inform HTA and BRA decisions.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Litva A, et al. ‘The public is too subjective’: public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(12):1825–37.PubMedCrossRef Litva A, et al. ‘The public is too subjective’: public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(12):1825–37.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Coulter A. Patient engagement—what works? J Ambul Care Manag. 2012;35(2):80–9.CrossRef Coulter A. Patient engagement—what works? J Ambul Care Manag. 2012;35(2):80–9.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith M, Higgs J, Ellis E. Factors influencing clinical decision making, in clinical reasoning in the health professions. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2008. p. 89–100. Smith M, Higgs J, Ellis E. Factors influencing clinical decision making, in clinical reasoning in the health professions. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2008. p. 89–100.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bridges J, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):30–5.PubMedCrossRef Bridges J, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):30–5.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Gagnon M, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: a systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):31–42.PubMedCrossRef Gagnon M, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: a systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):31–42.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat van Til J, Ijzerman M. Why should regulators consider using patient preferences in benefit–risk assessment? Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(1):1–4.PubMedCrossRef van Til J, Ijzerman M. Why should regulators consider using patient preferences in benefit–risk assessment? Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(1):1–4.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Bridges J, et al. Patient preference methods—a patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 2007;12(6):4–7. Bridges J, et al. Patient preference methods—a patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 2007;12(6):4–7.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1944. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1944.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Carson R, Louviere J. A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Resour Econ. 2011;49(4):539–59.CrossRef Carson R, Louviere J. A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Resour Econ. 2011;49(4):539–59.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Ali S, Ronaldson S. Ordinal preference elicitation methods in health economics and health services research: using discrete choice experiments and ranking methods. Br Med Bull. 2012;103:21–44.PubMedCrossRef Ali S, Ronaldson S. Ordinal preference elicitation methods in health economics and health services research: using discrete choice experiments and ranking methods. Br Med Bull. 2012;103:21–44.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Meißner M, Decker R. An empirical comparison of CBC and AHP for measuring consumer preferences. In: International Symposium of Analytical Hierarchy Process; 2009; Pittsburgh. Meißner M, Decker R. An empirical comparison of CBC and AHP for measuring consumer preferences. In: International Symposium of Analytical Hierarchy Process; 2009; Pittsburgh.
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Green P, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res. 1978;5:103–23.CrossRef Green P, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res. 1978;5:103–23.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Louviere J. Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 1988;22(1):93–119. Louviere J. Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 1988;22(1):93–119.
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Hauber A, Fairchild A, Johnson F. Quantifying benefit–risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(4):319–29.CrossRef Hauber A, Fairchild A, Johnson F. Quantifying benefit–risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(4):319–29.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):186. Ryan M, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):186.
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, Skåtun D, Major K. Using discrete choice experiments to go beyond clinical outcomes when evaluating clinical practice. In: Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M (eds). Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care,. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008:101–16. Ryan M, Skåtun D, Major K. Using discrete choice experiments to go beyond clinical outcomes when evaluating clinical practice. In: Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M (eds). Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care,. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008:101–16.
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Esfandiari S, et al. Implant overdentures for edentulous elders: study of patient preference. Gerodontology. 2009;26(1):3–10.PubMedCrossRef Esfandiari S, et al. Implant overdentures for edentulous elders: study of patient preference. Gerodontology. 2009;26(1):3–10.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Montgomery AA, Harding J, Fahey T. Shared decision making in hypertension: the impact of patient preferences on treatment choice. Fam Pract. 2001;18(3):309–13.PubMedCrossRef Montgomery AA, Harding J, Fahey T. Shared decision making in hypertension: the impact of patient preferences on treatment choice. Fam Pract. 2001;18(3):309–13.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS. Preferences for ‘life-saving’ programmes: small for all or gambling for the prize? Health Econ. 2008;17(6):709–20.PubMedCrossRef Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS. Preferences for ‘life-saving’ programmes: small for all or gambling for the prize? Health Econ. 2008;17(6):709–20.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Sommers B, et al. Decision analysis using individual patient preferences to determine optimal treatment for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2007;110(10):2210–7.PubMedCrossRef Sommers B, et al. Decision analysis using individual patient preferences to determine optimal treatment for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2007;110(10):2210–7.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Ubel P, et al. Public preferences for prevention versus cure. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18:141–8. Ubel P, et al. Public preferences for prevention versus cure. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18:141–8.
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Hallan S, et al. Quality of life after cerebrovascular stroke: a systematic study of patients’ preferences for different functional outcomes. J Intern Med. 1999;246(3):309–16.PubMedCrossRef Hallan S, et al. Quality of life after cerebrovascular stroke: a systematic study of patients’ preferences for different functional outcomes. J Intern Med. 1999;246(3):309–16.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Marti J. Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(5):533–48.PubMedCrossRef Marti J. Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(5):533–48.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Brundage MD, et al. Using a treatment-tradeoff method to elicit preferences for the treatment of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(3):256–67.CrossRef Brundage MD, et al. Using a treatment-tradeoff method to elicit preferences for the treatment of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(3):256–67.CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh J, et al. Medical decision-making and the patient: understanding preference patterns for growth hormone therapy using conjoint analysis. Med Care. 1998;36(8 Suppl):AS31–45.PubMed Singh J, et al. Medical decision-making and the patient: understanding preference patterns for growth hormone therapy using conjoint analysis. Med Care. 1998;36(8 Suppl):AS31–45.PubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Swancutt DR, Greenfield SM, Wilson S, Women’s colposcopy experience and preferences: a mixed methods study. BMC Womens Health. 2008;8:2. Swancutt DR, Greenfield SM, Wilson S, Women’s colposcopy experience and preferences: a mixed methods study. BMC Womens Health. 2008;8:2.
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Estimation of a preference-based carer experience scale. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(3):458–68.CrossRef Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Estimation of a preference-based carer experience scale. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(3):458–68.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.CrossRef Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Chapman GB, et al. A multi-attribute model of prostate cancer patients’ preferences for health states. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(3):171–80.PubMedCrossRef Chapman GB, et al. A multi-attribute model of prostate cancer patients’ preferences for health states. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(3):171–80.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Hummel MJM, et al. Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment. Patient. 2012;5(4):225–37.PubMedCrossRef Hummel MJM, et al. Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment. Patient. 2012;5(4):225–37.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Cunich M, et al. Integrating evidence and individual preferences using a web-based multi-criteria decision analytic tool: an application to prostate cancer screening. Patient. 2011;4(3):153–62.PubMedCrossRef Cunich M, et al. Integrating evidence and individual preferences using a web-based multi-criteria decision analytic tool: an application to prostate cancer screening. Patient. 2011;4(3):153–62.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychol Med. 1988;18(4):1007–19.PubMedCrossRef McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychol Med. 1988;18(4):1007–19.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Albert N. Patient or physician preferences for decision analysis: the prenatal genetic testing decision. Med Decis Mak. 1999;19(1):66–77.CrossRef Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Albert N. Patient or physician preferences for decision analysis: the prenatal genetic testing decision. Med Decis Mak. 1999;19(1):66–77.CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Davis M, Hoffman J, Hsu J. Impact of patient acuity on preference for information and autonomy in decision making. Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6(8):781–5.PubMedCrossRef Davis M, Hoffman J, Hsu J. Impact of patient acuity on preference for information and autonomy in decision making. Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6(8):781–5.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Ruland C. Decision support for patient preference-based care planning effects on nursing care and patient outcomes. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6(4):304–12.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Ruland C. Decision support for patient preference-based care planning effects on nursing care and patient outcomes. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6(4):304–12.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Fiks A, et al. Development of an instrument to measure parents’ preferences and goals for the treatment of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Acad Pediatr. 2012;12(5):445–55.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Fiks A, et al. Development of an instrument to measure parents’ preferences and goals for the treatment of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Acad Pediatr. 2012;12(5):445–55.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Guerlain S, Hugine A, Wang L. A comparison of 4 epinephrine autoinjector delivery systems: usability and patient preference. Ann Allerg Asthma Immunol. 2010;104(2):172–7.CrossRef Guerlain S, Hugine A, Wang L. A comparison of 4 epinephrine autoinjector delivery systems: usability and patient preference. Ann Allerg Asthma Immunol. 2010;104(2):172–7.CrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P. Cure me even if it kills me: preferences for invasive cancer treatment. Med Decis Mak. 2005;25(6):614–9.CrossRef Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P. Cure me even if it kills me: preferences for invasive cancer treatment. Med Decis Mak. 2005;25(6):614–9.CrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat De Boer A, et al. Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: patients’ utilities and treatment preferences. Br J Cancer. 2002;86(6):851–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef De Boer A, et al. Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: patients’ utilities and treatment preferences. Br J Cancer. 2002;86(6):851–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson FR, et al. Quantifying women’s stated benefit–risk trade-off preferences for IBS treatment outcomes. Value Health. 2010;13(4):418–23.PubMedCrossRef Johnson FR, et al. Quantifying women’s stated benefit–risk trade-off preferences for IBS treatment outcomes. Value Health. 2010;13(4):418–23.PubMedCrossRef
43.
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Hauber AB, et al. Patients’ benefit–risk preferences for chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura therapies. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44(3):479–88.PubMedCrossRef Hauber AB, et al. Patients’ benefit–risk preferences for chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura therapies. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44(3):479–88.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Sanelli PC, et al. Work-in-progress toward incorporating patients’ preferences in practice guidelines for imaging aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(5):535–40.PubMedCrossRef Sanelli PC, et al. Work-in-progress toward incorporating patients’ preferences in practice guidelines for imaging aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(5):535–40.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Carroll AE, Downs SM. Improving decision analyses: parent preferences (utility values) for pediatric health outcomes. J Pediatr. 2009;155(1):21–5.PubMedCrossRef Carroll AE, Downs SM. Improving decision analyses: parent preferences (utility values) for pediatric health outcomes. J Pediatr. 2009;155(1):21–5.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Netten A, et al. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(16):1–166.PubMed Netten A, et al. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(16):1–166.PubMed
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Desser AS, Olsen JA, Grepperud S. Eliciting preferences for prioritizing treatment of rare diseases: the role of opportunity costs and framing effects. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(11):1051–61.PubMedCrossRef Desser AS, Olsen JA, Grepperud S. Eliciting preferences for prioritizing treatment of rare diseases: the role of opportunity costs and framing effects. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(11):1051–61.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Mason H, Baker R, Donaldson C. Understanding public preferences for prioritizing health care interventions in England: does the type of health gain matter? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16(2):81–9.PubMedCrossRef Mason H, Baker R, Donaldson C. Understanding public preferences for prioritizing health care interventions in England: does the type of health gain matter? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16(2):81–9.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ. 2000;9(2):137–48.PubMedCrossRef Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ. 2000;9(2):137–48.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Aristides M, et al. Conjoint analysis of a new chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced colorectal cancer. PharmacoEconomics. 2002;20(11):775–84.PubMedCrossRef Aristides M, et al. Conjoint analysis of a new chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced colorectal cancer. PharmacoEconomics. 2002;20(11):775–84.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Laba TL, et al. Patient preferences for adherence to treatment for osteoarthritis: the Medication Decisions in Osteoarthritis Study (MEDOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14(160):1471–2474. Laba TL, et al. Patient preferences for adherence to treatment for osteoarthritis: the Medication Decisions in Osteoarthritis Study (MEDOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14(160):1471–2474.
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Benjamin L, et al. Physicians’ preferences for prescribing oral and intravenous anticancer drugs: a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(6):912–20.PubMedCrossRef Benjamin L, et al. Physicians’ preferences for prescribing oral and intravenous anticancer drugs: a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(6):912–20.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Witticke, D et al. Do we prescribe what patients prefer? Pilot study to assess patient preferences for medication regimen characteristics. Patient Prefer Adher, 2012;6:679–84. Witticke, D et al. Do we prescribe what patients prefer? Pilot study to assess patient preferences for medication regimen characteristics. Patient Prefer Adher, 2012;6:679–84.
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Rhodes E, et al. Preferences for type 2 diabetes health states among adolescents with or at risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr Diabetes. 2011;12(8):724–32.PubMedCrossRef Rhodes E, et al. Preferences for type 2 diabetes health states among adolescents with or at risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr Diabetes. 2011;12(8):724–32.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson F, et al. Are gastroenterologists less tolerant of treatment risks than patients? Benefit–risk preferences in Crohn’s disease management. J Manag Care Pharm. 2010;16(8):616–28.PubMed Johnson F, et al. Are gastroenterologists less tolerant of treatment risks than patients? Benefit–risk preferences in Crohn’s disease management. J Manag Care Pharm. 2010;16(8):616–28.PubMed
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Vermeulen H, et al. Preferences of patients, doctors, and nurses regarding wound dressing characteristics: a conjoint analysis. Wound Repair Regen. 2007;15(3):302–7.PubMedCrossRef Vermeulen H, et al. Preferences of patients, doctors, and nurses regarding wound dressing characteristics: a conjoint analysis. Wound Repair Regen. 2007;15(3):302–7.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Pardon K, et al. Preferences of advanced lung cancer patients for patient-centred information and decision-making: a prospective multicentre study in 13 hospitals in Belgium. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(3):421–9.PubMedCrossRef Pardon K, et al. Preferences of advanced lung cancer patients for patient-centred information and decision-making: a prospective multicentre study in 13 hospitals in Belgium. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(3):421–9.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Pardon K, et al. Are patients’ preferences for information and participation in medical decision-making being met? Interview study with lung cancer patients. Palliative Med. 2011;25(1):62–70.CrossRef Pardon K, et al. Are patients’ preferences for information and participation in medical decision-making being met? Interview study with lung cancer patients. Palliative Med. 2011;25(1):62–70.CrossRef
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Troche CJ, Paltiel AD, Makuch RW. Evaluation of therapeutic strategies: a new method for balancing risk and benefit. Value Health. 2000;3(1):12–22.PubMedCrossRef Troche CJ, Paltiel AD, Makuch RW. Evaluation of therapeutic strategies: a new method for balancing risk and benefit. Value Health. 2000;3(1):12–22.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith R, et al. The capability approach: an alternative evaluation paradigm for health economics? In: Jones AM (ed). The Elgar companion to health economics. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2012:415. Smith R, et al. The capability approach: an alternative evaluation paradigm for health economics? In: Jones AM (ed). The Elgar companion to health economics. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2012:415.
64.
Zurück zum Zitat Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(4):329–34.CrossRef Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(4):329–34.CrossRef
65.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson F, et al. Crohn’s disease patients’ risk-benefit preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(3):769–79.PubMedCrossRef Johnson F, et al. Crohn’s disease patients’ risk-benefit preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(3):769–79.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson F, et al. Multiple sclerosis patients’ benefit–risk preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. J Neurol. 2009;256(4):554–62.PubMedCrossRef Johnson F, et al. Multiple sclerosis patients’ benefit–risk preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. J Neurol. 2009;256(4):554–62.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Zurück zum Zitat Diaby V, Goeree R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: a step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(1):81–99.PubMedCrossRef Diaby V, Goeree R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: a step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(1):81–99.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson FR, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.CrossRef Johnson FR, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.CrossRef
70.
Zurück zum Zitat Goel V, et al. Randomized trial of a patient decision aid for choice of surgical treatment for breast cancer. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(1):1–6.CrossRef Goel V, et al. Randomized trial of a patient decision aid for choice of surgical treatment for breast cancer. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(1):1–6.CrossRef
71.
Zurück zum Zitat Ruland C. Decision support for patient preference-based care planning effects on nursing care and patient outcomes. J Am Med Informat Assoc. 1999;6(4):304–12.CrossRef Ruland C. Decision support for patient preference-based care planning effects on nursing care and patient outcomes. J Am Med Informat Assoc. 1999;6(4):304–12.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
A Systematic Review to Identify the Use of Preference Elicitation Methods in Healthcare Decision Making
verfasst von
Marieke G. M. Weernink
Sarah I. M. Janus
Janine A. van Til
Dennis W. Raisch
Jeannette G. van Manen
Maarten J. IJzerman
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2014
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Pharmaceutical Medicine / Ausgabe 4/2014
Print ISSN: 1178-2595
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-1993
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-014-0059-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2014

Pharmaceutical Medicine 4/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Update

Forum