IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i1p44-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Whose Preferences Matter? A Patient-Centered Approach for Eliciting Treatment Goals

Author

Listed:
  • Nananda F. Col
  • Andrew J. Solomon
  • Vicky Springmann
  • Calvin P. Garbin
  • Carolina Ionete
  • Lori Pbert
  • Enrique Alvarez
  • Brenda Tierman
  • Ashli Hopson
  • Christen Kutz
  • Idanis Berrios Morales
  • Carolyn Griffin
  • Glenn Phillips
  • Long H. Ngo

Abstract

Background. Patients facing a high-stakes clinical decision are often confronted with an overwhelming array of options. High-quality decisions about treatment should reflect patients’ preferences as well as their clinical characteristics. Preference-assessment instruments typically focus on pre-selected clinical outcomes and attributes chosen by the investigator. Objective. We sought to develop a patient-centered approach to elicit and compare the treatment goals of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and healthcare providers (HCPs). Methods. We conducted five nominal group technique (NGT) meetings to elicit and prioritize treatment goals from patients and HCPs. Five to nine participants in each group responded silently to one question about their treatment goals. Responses were shared, consolidated, and ranked to develop a prioritized list for each group. The ranked lists were combined. Goals were rated and sorted into categories. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to derive a visual representation, or cognitive map, of the data and to identify conceptual clusters, reflecting how frequently items were sorted into the same category. Results. Five NGT groups yielded 34 unique patient-generated treatment goals and 31 unique HCP-generated goals. There were differences between patients and HCPs in the goals generated and how they were clustered. Patients’ goals tended to focus on the impact of specific symptoms on their day-to-day lives, whereas providers’ goals focused on slowing down the course of disease progression. Conclusions. Differences between the treatment goals of patients and HCPs underscore the limitations of using HCP- or investigator-identified goals. This new adaptation of cognitive mapping is a patient-centered approach that can be used to generate and organize the outcomes and attributes for values clarification exercises while minimizing investigator bias and maximizing relevance to patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Nananda F. Col & Andrew J. Solomon & Vicky Springmann & Calvin P. Garbin & Carolina Ionete & Lori Pbert & Enrique Alvarez & Brenda Tierman & Ashli Hopson & Christen Kutz & Idanis Berrios Morales & Car, 2018. "Whose Preferences Matter? A Patient-Centered Approach for Eliciting Treatment Goals," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 44-55, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:1:p:44-55
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17724434
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17724434
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17724434?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. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    2. Holly O. Witteman & Laura D. Scherer & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Arwen H. Pieterse & Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis & Selma Chipenda Dansokho & Nicole Exe & Valerie C. Kahn & Deb Feldman-Stewart & Nananda F. Col & Ale, 2016. "Design Features of Explicit Values Clarification Methods," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 453-471, May.
    3. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    4. Wensing, Michel & Jung, Hans Peter & Mainz, Jan & Olesen, Frede & Grol, Richard, 1998. "A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: Description of the research domain," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1573-1588, November.
    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. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    2. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    3. Atallah, Shadi S. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Leahy, Jessica & Bennett, Karen, 2020. "Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304623, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Yoon, Moon Gil & Yoon, Duk Young & Yang, Tae Won, 2006. "Impact of e-business on air travel markets: Distribution of airline tickets in Korea," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 253-260.
    5. Norbert Bajkó & Zsolt Fülöp & Kinga Nagyné Pércsi, 2022. "Changes in the Innovation- and Marketing-Habits of Family SMEs in the Foodstuffs Industry, Caused by the Coronavirus Pandemic in Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Jean Spinks & Son Nghiem & Joshua Byrnes, 2021. "Risky business, healthy lives: how risk perception, risk preferences and information influence consumer’s risky health choices," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 811-831, July.
    7. Nikita Arora & Matthew Quaife & Kara Hanson & Mylene Lagarde & Dorka Woldesenbet & Abiy Seifu & Romain Crastes dit Sourd, 2022. "Discrete choice analysis of health worker job preferences in Ethiopia: Separating attribute non‐attendance from taste heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 806-819, May.
    8. Heap, Shaun P. Hargreaves & Koop, Christel & Matakos, Konstantinos & Unan, Asli & Weber, Nina Sophie, 2021. "We Cannot Disagree Forever! Reality Polarization and Citizens’ Post-Pandemic Fiscal Adjustment Preferences," SocArXiv 69tup, Center for Open Science.
    9. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Emmanuel Olateju Oyatoye & Sulaimon Olanrewaju Adebiyi & Bilqis Bolanle Amole, 2013. "An Application of Conjoint Analysis to Consumer Preference for Beverage Products in Nigeria," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 9(6), pages 43-56, December.
    11. Krieger, Abba M. & Green, Paul E., 2006. "A tactical model for resource allocation and its application to advertising budgeting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(3), pages 935-949, May.
    12. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    13. Chen, Yi & Ding, Shuai & Zheng, Handong & Zhang, Youtao & Yang, Shanlin, 2018. "Exploring diffusion strategies for mHealth promotion using evolutionary game model," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 336(C), pages 148-161.
    14. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    15. Ashill, Nicholas J. & Rod, Michel, 2011. "Burnout processes in non-clinical health service encounters," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 1116-1127, October.
    16. Shakila Yasmin & Khaled Mahmud & Farzan Afrin, 2016. "Job Attribute Preference of Executives: A Conjoint Analysis," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(2), pages 1-68, February.
    17. Kick, Markus & Littich, Martina, 2015. "Brand and Reputation as Quality Signals on Regulated Markets," EconStor Preprints 182503, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    18. Dean A. Shepherd & Holger Patzelt, 2015. "Harsh Evaluations of Entrepreneurs Who Fail: The Role of Sexual Orientation, Use of Environmentally Friendly Technologies, and Observers' Perspective Taking," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 253-284, March.
    19. Meixner, Oliver & Haas, Rainer & Pochtrager, Siegfried, 2007. "Importance and Relevance of Quality Labels in the Austrian Meat Supply Chain," 2007 1st Forum, February 15-17, 2007, Innsbruck, Austria 6598, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    20. Andreas Klein, 2011. "Die Entwicklung eines agentenbasierten Basismodells zur Bestimmung der deckungsbeitragsmaximierenden Anzahl von Außendienstmitarbeitern," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 189-210, January.

    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:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:1:p:44-55. 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.