Cargando…
Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison
BACKGROUND: Incorporating patient preference (PP) information into decision-making has become increasingly important to many stakeholders. However, there is little guidance on which patient preference assessment methods, including preference exploration (qualitative) and elicitation (quantitative) m...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7304129/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32560655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01142-w |
_version_ | 1783548203373690880 |
---|---|
author | Whichello, Chiara Levitan, Bennett Juhaeri, Juhaeri Patadia, Vaishali DiSantostefano, Rachael Pinto, Cathy Anne de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. |
author_facet | Whichello, Chiara Levitan, Bennett Juhaeri, Juhaeri Patadia, Vaishali DiSantostefano, Rachael Pinto, Cathy Anne de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. |
author_sort | Whichello, Chiara |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Incorporating patient preference (PP) information into decision-making has become increasingly important to many stakeholders. However, there is little guidance on which patient preference assessment methods, including preference exploration (qualitative) and elicitation (quantitative) methods, are most suitable for decision-making at different stages in the medical product lifecycle (MPLC). This study aimed to use an empirical approach to assess which attributes of PP assessment methods are most important, and to identify which methods are most suitable, for decision-makers’ needs during different stages in the MPLC. METHODS: A four-step cumulative approach was taken: 1) Identify important criteria to appraise methods through a Q-methodology exercise, 2) Determine numerical weights to ascertain the relative importance of each criterion through an analytical hierarchy process, 3) Assess the performance of 33 PP methods by applying these weights, consulting international health preference research experts and review of literature, and 4) Compare and rank the methods within taxonomy groups reflecting their similar techniques to identify the most promising methods. RESULTS: The Q-methodology exercise was completed by 54 stakeholders with PP study experience, and the analytical hierarchy process was completed by 85 stakeholders with PP study experience. Additionally, 17 health preference research experts were consulted to assess the performance of the PP methods. Thirteen promising preference exploration and elicitation methods were identified as likely to meet decision-makers’ needs. Additionally, eight other methods that decision-makers might consider were identified, although they appeared appropriate only for some stages of the MPLC. CONCLUSIONS: This transparent, weighted approach to the comparison of methods supports decision-makers and researchers in selecting PP methods most appropriate for a given application. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7304129 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73041292020-06-22 Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison Whichello, Chiara Levitan, Bennett Juhaeri, Juhaeri Patadia, Vaishali DiSantostefano, Rachael Pinto, Cathy Anne de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article BACKGROUND: Incorporating patient preference (PP) information into decision-making has become increasingly important to many stakeholders. However, there is little guidance on which patient preference assessment methods, including preference exploration (qualitative) and elicitation (quantitative) methods, are most suitable for decision-making at different stages in the medical product lifecycle (MPLC). This study aimed to use an empirical approach to assess which attributes of PP assessment methods are most important, and to identify which methods are most suitable, for decision-makers’ needs during different stages in the MPLC. METHODS: A four-step cumulative approach was taken: 1) Identify important criteria to appraise methods through a Q-methodology exercise, 2) Determine numerical weights to ascertain the relative importance of each criterion through an analytical hierarchy process, 3) Assess the performance of 33 PP methods by applying these weights, consulting international health preference research experts and review of literature, and 4) Compare and rank the methods within taxonomy groups reflecting their similar techniques to identify the most promising methods. RESULTS: The Q-methodology exercise was completed by 54 stakeholders with PP study experience, and the analytical hierarchy process was completed by 85 stakeholders with PP study experience. Additionally, 17 health preference research experts were consulted to assess the performance of the PP methods. Thirteen promising preference exploration and elicitation methods were identified as likely to meet decision-makers’ needs. Additionally, eight other methods that decision-makers might consider were identified, although they appeared appropriate only for some stages of the MPLC. CONCLUSIONS: This transparent, weighted approach to the comparison of methods supports decision-makers and researchers in selecting PP methods most appropriate for a given application. BioMed Central 2020-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7304129/ /pubmed/32560655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01142-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Whichello, Chiara Levitan, Bennett Juhaeri, Juhaeri Patadia, Vaishali DiSantostefano, Rachael Pinto, Cathy Anne de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison |
title | Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison |
title_full | Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison |
title_fullStr | Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison |
title_full_unstemmed | Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison |
title_short | Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison |
title_sort | appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7304129/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32560655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01142-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT whichellochiara appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison AT levitanbennett appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison AT juhaerijuhaeri appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison AT patadiavaishali appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison AT disantostefanorachael appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison AT pintocathyanne appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison AT debekkergrobestherw appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison |