Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22272999›Full record

ArticleThe patient2008

Using conjoint analysis to model the preferences of different patient segments for attributes of patient-centered care.

Charles E Cunningham, Ken Deal, Heather Rimas, Heather Campbell, Ann Russell, Jennifer Henderson, Anne Matheson, Blake Melnick

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cancer survivor preferences for breast cancer follow-up care: a discrete choice experiment.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Shared Decision Making: From Decision Science to Data Science.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A test of concordance between patient and psychiatrist valuations of multiple treatment goals for schizophrenia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2013
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Charles E Cunningham1 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 2 Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 3 Strategic Market Leadership and Health Services Management, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 4 Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology (IKIT), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ken Deal
Heather Rimas
Heather Campbell
Ann Russell
Jennifer Henderson
Anne Matheson
Blake Melnick

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA consensus regarding the components of a patient-centered approach to healthcare does not exist. Although patient-centered care should be predicated on patient preferences, existing models provide little evidence regarding the relative importance of different care processes to patients themselves.

objectiveTo involve patients in the design of a model of patient-centered care for a corporation of Canadian teaching hospitals.

methodsUsing themes from focus groups and interviews, a conjoint survey was developed comprising 14 four-level patient-centered care attributes. Sawtooth Software's Choice Based Conjoint module (version 2.6.7) was used to design the survey. Each participant completed 15 choice tasks, each task presenting a choice between three hospitals described by a different combination of patient-centered care attribute levels. Latent class analysis was used to identify segments of participants with similar patient-centered care choice patterns. Randomized First Choice simulations were used to predict the percentage of participants in each segment who would choose different approaches to improving patient-centered care.Representative hospital service users were recruited from a corporation of five Canadian teaching hospitals serving a regional population of 2.2 million.

resultsA total of 508 patients and family members of children completed a choice-based conjoint survey. Latent class analysis revealed two segments: an informed care segment and a convenient care segment. Participants in the informed care segment (71.3% of the sample) were more likely to have higher education, be non-immigrants, speak English as a first language, and be outpatients or family members.The information needed to understand health concerns, an opportunity to learn health improvement skills, teams that communicated effectively, short waiting times, and collaborative treatment planning were more important to the informed care segment than to the convenient care segment. Convenient settings, a welcoming environment, and ease of internal access exerted a greater influence on the choices made by the convenient care segment. Both segments preferred hospitals that provided health information and gave prompt feedback on patient progress.

conclusionsThis study suggests that many patients would exchange an increase in waiting times for prompt feedback, information, and the skills to improve their health.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.