IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/clnure/v27y2018i6p743-761.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychometric Properties of the Treatment Perception and Preferences Measure

Author

Listed:
  • Souraya Sidani
  • Dana R. Epstein
  • Mary Fox
  • Joyal Miranda

Abstract

Patient-centered care involves the provision of treatments that are responsive to patients’ preferences. This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Treatment Perception and Preferences measure. Participants ( n = 128) completed the measure relative to pharmacological, educational, and behavioral treatments for the management of insomnia. For each treatment, the measure presents a description of its goal, activities, mode and dose of delivery, and nine items to rate its perceived acceptability. All items measuring perception of treatment were internally consistent (α > .85) and loaded on one factor, except the item assessing severity of side effects. Differences in the measure’s scores between groups of participants provided evidence of validity: participants with a preference for a particular treatment rated it more favorably than alternative treatments. The measure provides a systematic and efficient method for eliciting well-informed treatment preferences. Its use in practice should be investigated.

Suggested Citation

  • Souraya Sidani & Dana R. Epstein & Mary Fox & Joyal Miranda, 2018. "Psychometric Properties of the Treatment Perception and Preferences Measure," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 27(6), pages 743-761, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:27:y:2018:i:6:p:743-761
    DOI: 10.1177/1054773816654137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1054773816654137
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1054773816654137?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Ishrat Hossain & Deborah J. Street & Stephanie A. Knox, 2014. "Providing Informal Care in Terminal Illness," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 731-745, August.
    2. Normand, Charles, 2012. "Setting priorities in and for end-of-life care: challenges in the application of economic evaluation," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 431-439, October.
    3. Susan Joy & Emily Little & Nisa Maruthur & Tanjala Purnell & John Bridges, 2013. "Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(10), pages 877-892, October.
    4. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    5. Finkelstein, Eric A. & Bilger, Marcel & Flynn, Terry N. & Malhotra, Chetna, 2015. "Preferences for end-of-life care among community-dwelling older adults and patients with advanced cancer: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(11), pages 1482-1489.
    6. Mark Harrison & Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Terry Flynn & Jordan Louviere & Katherine Payne, 2014. "Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 151-170, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ellen M. Janssen & Jodi B. Segal & John F. P. Bridges, 2016. "A Framework for Instrument Development of a Choice Experiment: An Application to Type 2 Diabetes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 465-479, October.
    2. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    3. Tinelli, Michela & Petrou, Panagiotis & Samoutis, George & Traynor, Vivie & Olympios, George & McGuire, Alistair, 2017. "Implementing shared-decision-making for diabetes care across country settings: What really matters to people?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 786-792.
    4. Huynh, Elisabeth & Coast, Joanna & Rose, John & Kinghorn, Philip & Flynn, Terry, 2017. "Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 114-128.
    5. David J. Mott & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale, 2023. "Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 413-423, April.
    6. Mesfin G. Genie & Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien, 2023. "Keeping an eye on cost: What can eye tracking tell us about attention to cost information in discrete choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 1101-1119, May.
    7. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    8. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter & von Wyl, Viktor & Beck, Konstantin & Weber, Andreas, 2023. "The value of a QALY towards the end of life and its determinants: Experimental evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    9. Determann, Domino & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hayen, Arthur P. & Varkevisser, Marco & Schut, Frederik T. & Wit, G. Ardine de, 2016. "What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 10-18.
    10. Patricia Kenny & Stephen Goodall & Deborah J. Street & Jessica Greene, 2017. "Choosing a Doctor: Does Presentation Format Affect the Way Consumers Use Health Care Performance Information?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(6), pages 739-751, December.
    11. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.
    12. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    13. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter, 2018. "End-of-life healthcare expenditure: Testing economic explanations using a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 30-38.
    14. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    15. Terry N. Flynn & Marcel Bilger & Chetna Malhotra & Eric A. Finkelstein, 2016. "Are Efficient Designs Used in Discrete Choice Experiments Too Difficult for Some Respondents? A Case Study Eliciting Preferences for End-of-Life Care," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 273-284, March.
    16. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    17. John Buckell & Joachim Marti & Jody L. Sindelar, 2017. "Should Flavors be Banned in E-cigarettes? Evidence on Adult Smokers and Recent Quitters from a Discrete Choice Experiment," NBER Working Papers 23865, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Pestana, Joana & Frutuoso, João & Costa, Eduardo & Fonseca, Filipa, 2024. "Heterogeneity in physician's job preferences in a dual practice context – Evidence from a DCE," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 343(C).
    19. Sriwastava, Ambuj & Reichert, Peter, 2023. "Reducing sample size requirements by extending discrete choice experiments to indifference elicitation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    20. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:27:y:2018:i:6:p:743-761. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.