Cargando…
A systematic review of questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires to be used when developing clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLIN...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6220727/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30464419 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S177540 |
_version_ | 1783368875217256448 |
---|---|
author | Bai, Fei Ling, Juan Esoimeme, Gloria Yao, Liang Wang, Mingxia Huang, Jiajun Shi, Anchen Cao, Zehui Chen, Yaolong Tian, Jinhui Wang, Xiaoqin Yang, Kehu |
author_facet | Bai, Fei Ling, Juan Esoimeme, Gloria Yao, Liang Wang, Mingxia Huang, Jiajun Shi, Anchen Cao, Zehui Chen, Yaolong Tian, Jinhui Wang, Xiaoqin Yang, Kehu |
author_sort | Bai, Fei |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires to be used when developing clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang Database was performed to identify studies on questionnaires evaluating patient’s values and preferences. The articles that used fully structured questionnaires or scales with standardized questions and answer options were included. We assessed the questionnaires’ construction and content with a psychometric methodology and summarized the domains and items about patient’s preferences and values. RESULTS: A total of 7,008 records were retrieved by the search strategy and scanned, and 20 articles were finally included. Of these, 10 (50%) articles described the process of item generation and only four questionnaires (20%, 4/20) mentioned the pilot testing. Regarding “validity”, seven questionnaires (35%, 7/20) assessed validity and only one (5%, 1/20) questionnaire assessed internal consistency, with Cornbrash’s α values of 0.74–0.87. For “acceptability”, the time to complete the questionnaires ranged from 10 to 30 minutes and only nine studies (45%, 9/20) reported the response rates. In addition, the results of domains and items about patient’s preferences and values showed that the “effectiveness” domain was the most considered item in the patient’s value questionnaire followed by “safety”, “prognosis”, and others, whereas the least considered domain was “physician’s experience”. CONCLUSION: Only a few studies have developed questionnaires with rigorous psychometric methods to measure patient’s preferences and values. Currently, still there is no valid or reliable questionnaire for patient’s preferences and values for use when developing clinical practice guidelines. Further study should be conducted to develop standardized instruments to measure patient’s preferences and values. This study provides the domains and items that may be used in formulating questionnaires about patient’s preferences and values. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6220727 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62207272018-11-21 A systematic review of questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines Bai, Fei Ling, Juan Esoimeme, Gloria Yao, Liang Wang, Mingxia Huang, Jiajun Shi, Anchen Cao, Zehui Chen, Yaolong Tian, Jinhui Wang, Xiaoqin Yang, Kehu Patient Prefer Adherence Review OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires to be used when developing clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang Database was performed to identify studies on questionnaires evaluating patient’s values and preferences. The articles that used fully structured questionnaires or scales with standardized questions and answer options were included. We assessed the questionnaires’ construction and content with a psychometric methodology and summarized the domains and items about patient’s preferences and values. RESULTS: A total of 7,008 records were retrieved by the search strategy and scanned, and 20 articles were finally included. Of these, 10 (50%) articles described the process of item generation and only four questionnaires (20%, 4/20) mentioned the pilot testing. Regarding “validity”, seven questionnaires (35%, 7/20) assessed validity and only one (5%, 1/20) questionnaire assessed internal consistency, with Cornbrash’s α values of 0.74–0.87. For “acceptability”, the time to complete the questionnaires ranged from 10 to 30 minutes and only nine studies (45%, 9/20) reported the response rates. In addition, the results of domains and items about patient’s preferences and values showed that the “effectiveness” domain was the most considered item in the patient’s value questionnaire followed by “safety”, “prognosis”, and others, whereas the least considered domain was “physician’s experience”. CONCLUSION: Only a few studies have developed questionnaires with rigorous psychometric methods to measure patient’s preferences and values. Currently, still there is no valid or reliable questionnaire for patient’s preferences and values for use when developing clinical practice guidelines. Further study should be conducted to develop standardized instruments to measure patient’s preferences and values. This study provides the domains and items that may be used in formulating questionnaires about patient’s preferences and values. Dove Medical Press 2018-11-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6220727/ /pubmed/30464419 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S177540 Text en © 2018 Bai et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Review Bai, Fei Ling, Juan Esoimeme, Gloria Yao, Liang Wang, Mingxia Huang, Jiajun Shi, Anchen Cao, Zehui Chen, Yaolong Tian, Jinhui Wang, Xiaoqin Yang, Kehu A systematic review of questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines |
title | A systematic review of questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines |
title_full | A systematic review of questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines |
title_fullStr | A systematic review of questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines |
title_full_unstemmed | A systematic review of questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines |
title_short | A systematic review of questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines |
title_sort | systematic review of questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6220727/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30464419 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S177540 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT baifei asystematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT lingjuan asystematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT esoimemegloria asystematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT yaoliang asystematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT wangmingxia asystematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT huangjiajun asystematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT shianchen asystematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT caozehui asystematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT chenyaolong asystematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT tianjinhui asystematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT wangxiaoqin asystematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT yangkehu asystematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT baifei systematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT lingjuan systematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT esoimemegloria systematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT yaoliang systematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT wangmingxia systematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT huangjiajun systematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT shianchen systematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT caozehui systematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT chenyaolong systematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT tianjinhui systematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT wangxiaoqin systematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines AT yangkehu systematicreviewofquestionnairesaboutpatientsvaluesandpreferencesinclinicalpracticeguidelines |