Background
Methods
Selection of studies
Data extraction and analysis
Results
Search results
Characteristics of included reviews
First author | Year | Title | Objective | Date of search |
---|---|---|---|---|
Belinchón [11] | 2016 | Adherence, satisfaction & preferences for treatment in patients with psoriasis in the European Union: a systematic review of the literature | “To examine & describe the current literature on patient preferences, satisfaction & adherence to treatment for psoriasis in the European Union.” | Dec. 2014 |
Bereza [12] | 2015 | Patient preferences in severe COPD & asthma: a comprehensive literature review | “To summarize original research articles determining patient preference in moderate-to-severe disease.” [COPD & asthma] | Nov. 2014 |
Blanchard [13] | 2016 | Assessing head & neck cancer patient preferences & expectations: a systematic review | “We conducted a systematic review of the current evidence regarding the preferences & priorities of patients with head & neck cancer.” | Sept. 2016 |
Blinman [14] | 2010 | Patients’ preferences for chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review | “To find, evaluate & summarise studies quantifying the survival benefits that cancer patients judged sufficient to make chemotherapy for NSCLC worthwhile.” | 2009 |
Bradley [15] | 2007 | Review of patterns of practice & patients’ preferences in the treatment of bone metastases with palliative radiotherapy | “To review the patterns of practice among radiation oncologists & patients’ preferences in the treatment of bone metastases with palliative radiotherapy.” | June 2006 |
Brooker [16] | 2013 | Quantitative patient preference evidence for health technology assessment: a case study | “To explore the feasibility & desirability of incorporating patient preferences within the health technology assessment process by working through a case study.” [COPD] | March 2011 |
Currie [17] | 2014 | A systematic review of patient preference elicitation methods in the treatment of colorectal cancer | “To assess the use of patient preference in colorectal cancer treatment.” | March 2014 |
Damm [18] | 2014 | Preferences of colorectal cancer patients for treatment & decision-making: a systematic literature review | “To identify the preferences of CRC patients with regard to treatment preferences & involvement in the decision-making process regarding treatment choices.” | Sept. 2012 |
Eek [19] | 2016 | Patient-reported preferences for oral vs. intravenous administration for the treatment of cancer: a review of the literature | “To evaluate the administration preferences of cancer patients, specifically between oral & intravenous treatment, as well as the factors contributing to preference.” | Jan. 2015 |
Eiring [20] | 2015 | What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication associated outcomes in mental disorders | “To investigate patients’ preferences for outcomes associated with psychoactive medications.” | Sept. 2013 |
Emberton [21] | 2010 | Medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: physician & patient preferences & satisfaction | “This review evaluates patients’ & physicians’ preferred treatment options for managing BPH & patient satisfaction with therapy.” | June 2008 |
Gutknecht [22] | 2016 | A systematic review on methods used to evaluate patient preferences in psoriasis treatments | “To give an overview of methods that have been used in international published studies to evaluate patient preferences in psoriasis treatments.” | Dec. 2014 |
Hamelinck [23] | 2014 | Patients’ preferences for surgical & adjuvant systemic treatment in early breast cancer: a systematic review | “To give an overview of patient self-reported factors affecting preferences for breast conserving surgery vs. mastectomy, the minimal benefit patients require from adjuvant chemotherapy or adjuvant hormonal therapy to consider it worthwhile, & factors influencing this minimally-required benefit.” | Oct. 2012 |
Joy [24] | 2013 | Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review | “To identify & assess the literature reporting on the treatment preferences of adult patients with type 2 diabetes.” | Jan. 2013 |
Lytvyn [25] | 2016 | Patient values & preferences on trans-catheter or surgical aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis: a systematic review | “To investigate patients’ values & preferences regarding aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis.” | Unclear |
MacLean [26] | 2012 | Patient values & preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review | “We conducted a systematic review relating to values & preferences of patients considering antithrombotic therapy.” | Sept. 2009 |
Mansfield [27] | 2016 | Stated preference for cancer screening: a systematic review of the literature, 1990–2013 | “We reviewed stated-preference studies for breast, cervical, & colorectal cancer screening to identify the types of attributes included, the use of questions to assess uptake, & whether gaps exist in these areas.” | July 2013 |
Phillips [28] | 2006 | A review of studies examining stated preferences for cancer screening | “To conduct a systematic review of stated preference studies for cancer screening, identify gaps in the literature, & determine which types of research should be conducted in the future.” | May 2005 |
Purnell [29] | 2014 | Patient preferences for noninsulin diabetes medications: a systematic review | “To systematically review patient preferences for noninsulin diabetes medications in adults with type 2 diabetes.” | Jan. 2013 |
Sadique [30] | 2011 | Women’s preferences regarding options for management of atypical, borderline or low-grade cervical cytological abnormalities: a review of the evidence | “To identify empirical studies evaluating women’s preferences regarding alternative management pathways & to compare the impact of alternative elicitation methods on results.” | March 2009 |
Schatz [31] | 2015 | Systematic review of patients’ & parents’ preferences for ADHD treatment options & processes of care | “To synthesize reports across existing DCE, BWS, TTO, & SGI studies to assess which aspects of ADHD treatment are most studied as well as most preferred & influential in treatment decisions.” | Oct. 2014 |
Schmidt [32] | 2016 | Preferences of lung cancer patients for treatment & decision-making: a systematic literature review | “To identify the preferences of lung cancer patients with regard to their treatment & involvement in the decision-making process.” | Sept. 2012 |
Showalter [33] | 2015 | Factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options: a systematic review | “We performed a systematic review to evaluate evidence regarding factors that influence patient preferences for management options for localized prostate cancer.” | April 2014 |
Stewart [34] | 2016 | Preference for pharmaceutical formulation & treatment process attributes | “To examine studies on preferences for pharmaceutical treatment process attributes, focusing on research in diabetes, oncology, osteoporosis, & autoimmune disorders.” | Oct. 2013 |
Umar [35] | 2012 | Elicitation & use of patients’ preferences in the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review | “To critically review the scientific evidence regarding the elicitation & use of patients’ preferences in psoriasis treatment.” | Nov. 2009 |
Van Brunt [10] | 2011 | Preferences related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder & its treatment | “To identify & summarize published research on preferences related ADHD & its treatment, while suggesting directions for future research.” | Unclear |
Von Arx [36] | 2014 | The patient perspective of diabetes care: a systematic review of stated preference research | “To examine how stated preference methods are applied in diabetes care, & to evaluate the value of this information in developing the patient perspective in clinical & policy decisions.” | May 2013 |
Wilke [37] | 2016 | Patient preferences for oral anti- coagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation: a systematic literature review | “To systematically analyse the scientific literature assessing the preferences of AF patients with regard to long-term oral anticoagulant treatment.” | 2015 |
Wortley [38] | 2014 | Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments | “To undertake a systematic review of discrete choice experiments of CRC screening.” | April 2013 |
Characteristics of the systematic review (N = 29) | |
---|---|
Number of databases searched | |
One, n (%)
| 6 (21) |
Two, n (%)
| 4 (14) |
Three to five, n (%)
| 11 (38) |
More than five, n (%)
| 8 (28) |
Database searched | |
PubMed or MEDLINE, n (%)
| 29 (100) |
EMBASE, n (%)
| 19 (66) |
CINAHL, n (%)
| 9 (31) |
PsycINFO, n (%)
| 9 (31) |
EconLit, n (%)
| 8 (28) |
Other databases, n (%)
| 14 (48) |
Searched for non-English articles, n (%) | 7 (24) |
Reported searching reference lists of included studies, n (%) | 14 (48) |
Reported searching for conference abstracts, unpublished studies or grey literature, n (%) | 6 (21) |
Reported methods used to assess study eligibility, n (%) | 25 (86) |
Reported assessing risk of bias or methodological quality of included studies, n (%) | 13 (45) |
Used quantitative methods (meta-analysis) to synthesize study data, n (%) | 0 (0) |
Funding sources listed | |
No funding, n (%)
| 3 (10) |
Government, n (%)
| 14 (48) |
Industry, n (%)
| 9 (31) |
Others, n (%)
| 5 (17) |
Unclear, n (%)
| 2 (7) |
Review | Strategy used to search for preference studies |
---|---|
Belinchón, 2016 | Search terms included “preferences” and “utility”. |
Bereza, 2015 | Search terms included “preference” and “utilities”. |
Blanchard, 2016 | Search terms included “patient preference”, “patient priorities” and the different patient stated-preference methods, such as “rating”, “ranking”, “best-worst”, “self-explicated”, “value-based conjoint analysis”, “rating-based conjoint analysis”, “choice-based conjoint analysis”, “take it or leave it”, “tradeoff” and “trade-off”. |
Blinman, 2010 | Search terms included “preference”, “utility”, “attitude”, “expectation” and “willingness”. |
Bradley, 2007 | Search terms included “patient preferences”, “patient satisfaction” and “patient participation”. |
Brooker, 2013 | Search terms included those that relate to “patient perspectives”, “satisfaction”, “preferences” and “values”. |
Currie, 2014 | Search terms included those that relate to existing patient preference elicitation methodologies: “patient preference”, “shared decision-making”, “patient involvement”, “patient participation”, “patient satisfaction”, “physician–patient relation”, “standard gamble”, “time trade-off”, “willingness to trade”, “willingness to pay”, “decision board” and “discrete choice experiment”. |
Damm, 2014 | Search terms included “patient” and “preference or willingness”. |
Eek, 2016 | Search terms included “preference”, “prefer”, “preferred”, “choice”, “select” and “selection”. |
Eiring, 2015 | Comprehensive search strategies were developed (see http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e007848). |
Emberton, 2010 | Search terms included “patient preference”, “perception” and “satisfaction”. |
Gutknecht, 2016 | Search terms included keywords of preference methods in health economics: “preferences”, “conjoint analysis”, “choice model”, “discrete choice”, “DCE”, “decision analysis”, “multi-criteria decision analysis”, “MCDA”, “multi-attribute utility”, “analytic hierarchy process”, “AHP”, “trade-off”, “best-worst scaling”, “willingness-to-pay”, “WTP”, “willingness to accept”, “contingent valuation” and “standard gamble”. |
Hamelinck, 2014 | Search terms included “patient preference”, “choice”, “decision”, “choice behavior”, “decision making” and “patient satisfaction”. |
Joy, 2013 | Search terms included “conjoint analysis”, “satisfaction”, “choice model”, “stated preference”, “discrete choice”, “DCE”, “decision analysis”, “preferences”, “multicriteria decision analysis”, “MCDA”, “multi-attribute utility”, “analytic hierarchy process”, “trade off”, “self-explicated”, “best-worst scaling”, “utilities”, “preference weight”, “willingness to pay”, “WTP”, “willingness to accept”, “contingent valuation”, “priorities” and “valuation”. |
Lytvyn, 2016 | Search terms included “health utility”, “patient values”, “patient preferences” and “health-related quality of life”. |
MacLean, 2012 | Unclear |
Mansfield, 2016 | Search terms included “conjoint analysis”, “discrete choice”, “discrete ranking” and “discrete rank”. |
Phillips, 2006 | Search terms included “patient satisfaction”, “numerical data”, “consumer satisfaction”, “health knowledge”, “attitudes”, “practice”, “choice behavior”, “conjoint analysis”, “contingent valuation”, “stated preference”, “discrete choice” and “willingness to pay”. |
Purnell, 2014 | Search terms included methods to assess patient preferences (e.g., “conjoint analysis”, “decision analysis”, “utilities”, and “stated preferences”). |
Sadique, 2011 | Search terms included “preferences”, “values”, “willingness-to-pay” and “utility”. |
Schatz, 2015 | Search terms included “patient preferences”, “stated preferences”, “discrete choice”, “conjoint analysis”, “best worst”, “maximum difference”, “standard gamble”, “time trade-off” and “utility values”. |
Schmidt, 2016 | Search terms included “patient”, “preference”, and “willingness”. |
Showalter, 2015 | Search terms included “conjoint analysis”, “satisfaction”, “choice model”, “stated preference”, “discrete choice”, “DCE”, “decision analysis”, “preferences”, “multi-criteria decision analysis”, “MCDA”, “multi-attribute utility”, “analytic hierarchy process”, “trade off”, “self-explicated”, “best-worst scaling”, “utilities”, “preference weight”, “willingness to pay”, “WTP”, “willingness to accept”, “contingent valuation”, “priorities” and “valuation”. |
Stewart, 2016 | Search terms included “stated preference(s)”, “time trade-off”, “standard gamble”, “conjoint”, “contingent valuation”, “discrete choice” and “willingness-to-pay”. |
Umar, 2012 | Search terms included “patient preferences”, “shared decision-making”, “patient involvement”, “patient participation”, “patient satisfaction” and “physician-patient relation”. |
Van Brunt, 2011 | Search terms included “health state utility”, “utility”, “discrete choice”, “standard gamble”, “time trade-off”, “quality-adjusted life year”, “conjoint analysis”, “patient preference”, “preference”, “prefer”, “satisfaction”, “acceptability”, “decision” and “choice”. |
Von Arx, 2014 | Search terms included “stated preference”, “willingness to pay”, “willingness to accept”, “choice modelling”, “conjoint analysis”, “discrete choice experiment” and “contingent valuation”. |
Wilke, 2016 | Search terms included “discrete choice experiment”, “treatment preference”, “conjoint” and “trade off”. |
Wortley, 2014 | Search terms included “stated preference” and “choice experiment”. |
Review | Type of included preference studies reported by the review |
---|---|
Belinchón, 2016 | CA, DCE |
Bereza, 2015 | WTP |
Blanchard, 2016 | RS, SG, TTO, VAS |
Blinman, 2010 | Preference study design not specified |
Bradley, 2007 | Preference study design not specified |
Brooker, 2013 | Preference study design not specified |
Currie, 2014 | DCE, SG, TTO |
Damm, 2014 | CA, DCE, RS, SG, TTO |
Eek, 2016 | CA |
Eiring, 2015 | CA, DCE, PC, RS, SG, TTO, VAS, WTP |
Emberton, 2010 | DCE, RS |
Gutknecht, 2016 | CA, DCE, RS, SG, TTO, VAS, WTP |
Hamelinck, 2014 | Preference study design not specified |
Joy, 2013 | CA, CV, RS, SG, TTO, WTP |
Lytvyn, 2016 | SG |
MacLean, 2012 | PTOT, RS, SG, TTO, VAS |
Mansfield, 2016 | CA, DCE |
Phillips, 2006 | CA, CV |
Purnell, 2014 | CA, DCE, RS, SG, TTO, VAS, WTP |
Sadique, 2011 | SG, WTP |
Schatz, 2015 | BWS, DCE, SG |
Schmidt, 2016 | CV, DCE, RS, WTP |
Showalter, 2015 | DCE, TTO |
Stewart, 2016 | BWS, CV, DCE, SG, TTO, WTP |
Umar, 2012 | DCE, PTO, SG, TTO, VAS, WTP |
Van Brunt, 2011 | DCE, SG |
Von Arx, 2014 | CV, DCE |
Wilke, 2016 | CA, DCE, PTO, SG, TTO, VAS |
Wortley, 2014 | DCE |