Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison
Abstract 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 (quantit...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2020-06-01
|
| Series: | BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12911-020-01142-w |
| _version_ | 1819113088576651264 |
|---|---|
| author | Chiara Whichello Bennett Levitan Juhaeri Juhaeri Vaishali Patadia Rachael DiSantostefano Cathy Anne Pinto Esther W. de Bekker-Grob |
| author_facet | Chiara Whichello Bennett Levitan Juhaeri Juhaeri Vaishali Patadia Rachael DiSantostefano Cathy Anne Pinto Esther W. de Bekker-Grob |
| author_sort | Chiara Whichello |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T04:23:51Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-900fc70fb4af4aa6a57c2fdd5b818aa5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1472-6947 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T04:23:51Z |
| publishDate | 2020-06-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making |
| spelling | doaj.art-900fc70fb4af4aa6a57c2fdd5b818aa52022-12-21T18:39:12ZengBMCBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making1472-69472020-06-0120111510.1186/s12911-020-01142-wAppraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparisonChiara Whichello0Bennett Levitan1Juhaeri Juhaeri2Vaishali Patadia3Rachael DiSantostefano4Cathy Anne Pinto5Esther W. de Bekker-Grob6Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University RotterdamJanssen R&D, LLCSanofiSanofiJanssen R&D, LLCMerck & Co, IncErasmus School of Health Policy & Management and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University RotterdamAbstract 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.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12911-020-01142-wPatient preferencesPreference elicitationPreference explorationPreference assessmentMethod comparisonDecision-making |
| spellingShingle | Chiara Whichello Bennett Levitan Juhaeri Juhaeri Vaishali Patadia Rachael DiSantostefano Cathy Anne Pinto Esther W. de Bekker-Grob Appraising patient preference methods for decision-making in the medical product lifecycle: an empirical comparison BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making Patient preferences Preference elicitation Preference exploration Preference assessment Method comparison Decision-making |
| 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 | Patient preferences Preference elicitation Preference exploration Preference assessment Method comparison Decision-making |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12911-020-01142-w |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT chiarawhichello appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison AT bennettlevitan appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison AT juhaerijuhaeri appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison AT vaishalipatadia appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison AT rachaeldisantostefano appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison AT cathyannepinto appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison AT estherwdebekkergrob appraisingpatientpreferencemethodsfordecisionmakinginthemedicalproductlifecycleanempiricalcomparison |