A systematic review of patient preference elicitation methods in the treatment of colorectal cancer

Currie, Andrew; Askari, Alan; Nachiappan, S; Sevdalis, Nick; Faiz, Omar; Kennedy, Robin H.

doi:10.1111/codi.12754

Cited by 26 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…24,25 Attitude studies such as this are straightforward to design, complete, and analyze because they provide ordinal data about patients' preferences. 26 These types of studies have been utilized in various other fields including oncology, 27 endocrinology, 28 and cardiology. 29 The ability to offer multiple treatment options is a key factor in establishing patient autonomy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient preferences for route of allergy immunotherapy: a comparison of four delivery methods

Chester

Bremberg

Reisacher

2016

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SCIT earned the lowest mean rank and had the least number of participants rank it as the most preferred method. Among the other 3 choices, by mean scores, SLIT was preferred most compared to either AIT or OMIT; but when considering first choices only, there were no significant differences in preference. Most of the study participants identified the convenience of home IT administration as the most important factor in their ranking.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient preferences for route of allergy immunotherapy: a comparison of four delivery methods

Chester

Bremberg

Reisacher

2016

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3] Various medical disciplines, such as oncology, cardiology, or psychiatry, have examined preferenceoriented approaches to deliver optimized care. [4][5][6] Including the patient's priorities seems particularly favorable in clinical settings where sufficient evidence regarding the most effective treatment strategy is lacking. 7 The pharmacotherapy of older patients with multiple morbidities is characterized by relevant knowledge gaps due to a paucity of age-related and context-related data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy – A Systematic Review</p>

Eidam¹,

Roth²,

Lacroix³

et al. 2020

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to identify methods used to assess medication preferences in older adults and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages with respect to their applicability to the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Material and Methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO) were searched. Eligible studies elicited individual treatment or outcome preferences in a context that involved long-term pharmacological treatment options. We included studies with a study population aged ≥ 65 years and/or with a mean or median age of ≥ 75 years. Qualitative studies, studies assessing preferences for only two different treatments, and studies targeting preferences for life-sustaining treatments were excluded. The identified preference measurement methods were evaluated based on four criteria (time budget, cognitive demand, variety of pharmacological aspects, and link with treatment strategies) judged to be relevant for the elicitation of patient preferences in polypharmacy. Results: Sixty articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis. Fifty-five different instruments to assess patient preferences, based on 24 different elicitation methods, were identified. The most commonly applied preference measurement techniques were "medication willingness" (description of a specific medication with inquiry of the participant's willingness to take it), discrete choice experiments, Likert scale-based questionnaires, and rank prioritization. The majority of the instruments were created for disease-specific or context-specific settings. Only three instruments (Outcome Prioritization Tool, a complex intervention, "MediMol" questionnaire) dealt with the broader issue of geriatric multimorbidity. Only seven of the identified tools showed somewhat favorable characteristics for a potential use of the respective method in the context of polypharmacy. Conclusion: Up to now, few instruments have been specifically designed for the assessment of medication preferences in older patients with multimorbidity. To facilitate valid preference elicitation in the context of geriatric polypharmacy, future research should focus on suitable characteristics of existing techniques to develop new measurement approaches for this increasingly relevant population.

show abstract

“…2014Blanchard [13]2016Assessing head & neck cancer patient preferences & expectations: asystematic review“We conducted a systematic review of the current evidence regarding the preferences & priorities of patients with head & neck cancer.”Sept. 2016Blinman [14]2010Patients’ preferences for chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review“To find, evaluate & summarise studies quantifying the survival benefits that cancer patients judged sufficient to make chemotherapy for NSCLC worthwhile.”2009Bradley [15]2007Review of patterns of practice & patients’ preferences in the treatment of bone metastases with palliative radiotherapy“To review the patterns of practice among radiation oncologists & patients’ preferences in the treatment of bone metastases with palliative radiotherapy.”June 2006Brooker [16]2013Quantitative patient preference evidence for health technology assessment: a case study“To explore the feasibility & desirability of incorporatingpatient preferences within the health technology assessment process by working through a case study.” [COPD]March 2011Currie [17]2014A systematic review of patient preference elicitation methods in the treatment of colorectal cancer“To assess the use of patient preference in colorectal cancer treatment.”March 2014Damm [18]2014Preferences of colorectal cancer patients for treatment & decision-making: a systematic literature review“To identify the preferences of CRC patients with regard to treatment preferences & involvement in the decision-making process regarding treatment choices.”Sept. 2012Eek [19]2016Patient-reported preferences for oral vs. intravenous administration for thetreatment of cancer: a review of the literature“To evaluate the administration preferences of cancer patients, specifically between oral & intravenous treatment, as well as the factors contributing to preference.”Jan.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods to perform systematic reviews of patient preferences: a literature survey

Enkh-Amgalan

Zorigt

2017

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSystematic reviews are a commonly used research design in the medical field to synthesize study findings. At present—although several systematic reviews of patient preference studies are published—there is no clear guidance available for researchers to conduct this type of systematic review. The aim of our study was to learn the most current practice of conducting these systematic reviews by conducting a survey of the literature regarding reviews of quantitative patient preference studies.MethodsOur survey included systematic reviews of studies that used a stated quantitative preference design to elicit patient preferences. We identified eligible reviews through a search of the PubMed database. Two investigators with knowledge of the design of patient preference studies independently screened the titles and abstracts, and where needed, screened the full-text of the reviews to determine eligibility. We developed and pilot-tested a form to extract data on the methods used in each systematic review.ResultsOur search and screening identified 29 eligible reviews. A large proportion of the reviews (19/29, 66%) were published in 2014 or after; among them, nine reviews were published in 2016. The median number of databases searched for preference studies was four (interquartile range = 2 to 7). We found that less than half of the reviews (13/29, 45%) clearly reported assessing risk of bias or the methodological quality of the included preference studies; not a single review was able to perform quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) of the data on patient preferences.ConclusionThese results suggest that several methodological issues of performing systematic reviews of patient preferences are not yet fully addressed by research and that the methodology may require future development.

show abstract

A systematic review of patient preference elicitation methods in the treatment of colorectal cancer

Abstract: Most patients judge a moderate survival benefit to be sufficient to make adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer worthwhile, but they are willing to trade a potential reduction in life expectancy and survival to avoid certain unwanted surgical sequelae.

Cited by 26 publications

References 36 publications

Patient preferences for route of allergy immunotherapy: a comparison of four delivery methods

Patient preferences for route of allergy immunotherapy: a comparison of four delivery methods

<p>Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy – A Systematic Review</p>

Methods to perform systematic reviews of patient preferences: a literature survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About