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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Kick, Markus & Littich, Martina, 2015. "Brand and Reputation as Quality Signals on Regulated Markets," EconStor Preprints 182503, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    9. Ragna Nilssen & Geoff Bick & Russell Abratt, 2019. "Comparing the relative importance of sustainability as a consumer purchase criterion of food and clothing in the retail sector," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(1), pages 71-83, January.
    10. Emma L Giles & Frauke Becker & Laura Ternent & Falko F Sniehotta & Elaine McColl & Jean Adams, 2016. "Acceptability of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviours: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, June.
    11. Thomas G. Poder & Nathalie Carrier & Mathieu Roy & Chantal Camden, 2020. "A Discrete Choice Experiment on Women’s Preferences for Water Immersion During Labor and Birth: Identification, Refinement and Selection of Attributes and Levels," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-11, March.
    12. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    13. Daniel V. Holland & Dean A. Shepherd, 2013. "Deciding to Persist: Adversity, Values, and Entrepreneurs’ Decision Policies," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 37(2), pages 331-358, March.
    14. Jiaqi Chen & Song Xu & Jing Gao, 2020. "The Mixed Effect of China’s New Health Care Reform on Health Insurance Coverage and the Efficiency of Health Service Utilisation: A Longitudinal Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-13, March.
    15. Percy Marquina & Vincent Charles, 2021. "A Bayesian resampling approach to estimate the difference in effect sizes in consumer social responses to CSR initiatives versus corporate abilities," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1680-1699, November.
    16. Carlsen, Benedicte & Hole, Arne Risa & Kolstad, Julie Riise & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2012. "When you can’t have the cake and eat it too," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1964-1973.
    17. Xinfang (Jocelyn) Wang & Jeffrey D. Camm & David J. Curry, 2009. "A Branch-and-Price Approach to the Share-of-Choice Product Line Design Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(10), pages 1718-1728, October.
    18. Mishra, Sanjay & Umesh, U. N., 2005. "Determining the quality of conjoint analysis results using violation of a priori signs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 301-311, March.
    19. Anne Domurath & Holger Patzelt, 2016. "Entrepreneurs’ Assessments of Early International Entry: The Role of Foreign Social Ties, Venture Absorptive Capacity, and Generalized Trust in Others," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 40(5), pages 1149-1177, September.
    20. Rachel Milte & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Michelle Miller & Maria Crotty, 2018. "Taste, choice and timing: Investigating resident and carer preferences for meals in aged care homes," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 116-124, March.

    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.