IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v16y2023i6d10.1007_s40271-023-00646-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Preferences in Diagnostic Imaging: A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • Trey A. Baird

    (University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine)

  • Davene R. Wright

    (Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute)

  • Maria T. Britto

    (University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine
    Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
    Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
    Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center)

  • Ellen A. Lipstein

    (University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine
    Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
    Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center)

  • Andrew T. Trout

    (University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine
    Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
    Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center)

  • Shireen E. Hayatghaibi

    (University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine
    Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
    Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center)

Abstract

Background As new diagnostic imaging technologies are adopted, decisions surrounding diagnostic imaging become increasingly complex. As such, understanding patient preferences in imaging decision making is imperative. Objectives We aimed to review quantitative patient preference studies in imaging-related decision making, including characteristics of the literature and the quality of the evidence. Methods The Pubmed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify studies involving diagnostic imaging and quantitative patient preference measures from January 2000 to June 2022. Study characteristics that were extracted included the preference elicitation method, disease focus, and sample size. We employed the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) checklist as our quality assessment tool. Results A total of 54 articles were included. The following methods were used to elicit preferences: conjoint analysis/discrete choice experiment methods (n = 27), contingent valuation (n = 16), time trade-off (n = 4), best-worst scaling (n = 3), multicriteria decision analysis (n = 3), and a standard gamble approach (n = 1). Half of the studies were published after 2016 (52%, 28/54). The most common scenario (n = 39) for eliciting patient preferences was cancer screening. Computed tomography, the most frequently studied imaging modality, was included in 20 studies, and sample sizes ranged from 30 to 3469 participants (mean 552). The mean PREFS score was 3.5 (standard deviation 0.8) for the included studies. Conclusions This review highlights that a variety of quantitative preference methods are being used, as diagnostic imaging technologies continue to evolve. While the number of preference studies in diagnostic imaging has increased with time, most examine preventative care/screening, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding imaging for disease characterization and management.

Suggested Citation

  • Trey A. Baird & Davene R. Wright & Maria T. Britto & Ellen A. Lipstein & Andrew T. Trout & Shireen E. Hayatghaibi, 2023. "Patient Preferences in Diagnostic Imaging: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(6), pages 579-591, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00646-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-023-00646-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-023-00646-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-023-00646-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stirling Bryan & David Parry, 2002. "Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in health care: an empirical investigation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(5), pages 561-567.
    2. Philip Clarke, 2000. "Valuing the benefits of mobile mammographic screening units using the contingent valuation method," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(13), pages 1647-1655.
    3. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Jes Søgaard, 2001. "Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 617-634, October.
    4. Shinji Takemura & Takashi Ohida & Tomofumi Sone & Takashi Fukuda & Yukie Takemura, 2005. "Influences of the absence of random assignment of bids on estimating willingness to pay using a discrete‐choice question," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 209-213, February.
    5. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    6. Stirling Bryan & Lisa Gold & Rob Sheldon & Martin Buxton, 2000. "Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(5), pages 385-395, July.
    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. Schwappach, David L.B. & Strasmann, Thomas J., 2006. ""Quick and dirty numbers"?: The reliability of a stated-preference technique for the measurement of preferences for resource allocation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 432-448, May.
    2. Kwarteng Michael Adu & Pilík Michal & Juřičková Eva, 2018. "Beyond cost saving. Other factor consideration in online purchases of used electronic goods: a conjoint analysis approach," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 13(3), pages 1051-1063, September.
    3. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    4. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    5. Johnson, Jane & Howard, Kirsten & Wilson, Andrew & Ward, Michael & Gilbert, Gwendolyn L. & Degeling, Chris, 2019. "Public preferences for One Health approaches to emerging infectious diseases: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 164-171.
    6. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    7. Kim, GwanSeon & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Interis, Matthew G., 2012. "A Method for Improving Welfare Estimates from Multiple-Referendum Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 37(2), pages 1-12, August.
    8. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "Temporal Stability of Stated Preferences: The Case of Junior Nursing Jobs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 802-809, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Semra Özdemir & Ateesha F. Mohamed & F. Reed Johnson & A. Brett Hauber, 2010. "Who pays attention in stated‐choice surveys?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 111-118, January.
    11. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    12. Takanori Ida & Shin Kinoshita & Masayuki Sato, 2008. "Conjoint analysis of demand for IP telephony: the case of Japan," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(10), pages 1279-1287.
    13. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    14. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    15. Lin Li & J L (Hans) Severens & Olena Mandrik, 2019. "Disutility associated with cancer screening programs: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    16. Rebekah Hall & Antonieta Medina-Lara & Willie Hamilton & Anne E. Spencer, 2022. "Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(3), pages 269-285, May.
    17. Hareth Al‐Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Tim J. Peters & Stirling Bryan & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Test–Retest Reliability of Capability Measurement in the UK General Population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(5), pages 625-630, May.
    18. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    19. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    20. Apostolakis, George & van Dijk, Gert & Kraanen, Frido & Blomme, Robert J., 2018. "Examining socially responsible investment preferences: A discrete choice conjoint experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 83-96.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:patien:v:16:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-023-00646-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.