ReviewPatient preference and adherence2018
A systematic review of questionnaires about patient's values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A practice guideline for therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolic acid for solid organ transplants.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2025Guideline
- How Do Open-Ended Interview and Closed-Ended Questionnaire Responses Compare? A Matched Mixed-Methods Study Examining Treatment Attitudes of Patients With Meniscal Tear and Persistent Pain.ACR open rheumatology · 2026Article
- Review
- Translation, cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Arabic short version of the coronary artery disease education questionnaire (CADE-Q SV) in Saudi Arabia.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Patients' Preferences and Expectations in Overactive Bladder: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Are Veterans Getting Their Preferred Depression Treatment? A National Observational Study in the Veterans Health Administration.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Observational
- Assessing Patient Preferences for Treatment Options for Pediatric Sickle Cell Disease: A Critical Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Review
- How to identify, incorporate and report patient preferences in clinical guidelines: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Article
- Measuring what really matters: Screening in primary care.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
- Validation and Reliability of the French Version of the Sydney Swallow Questionnaire.Dysphagia · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe conducted a systematic review to evaluate questionnaires about patient's values and preferences to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires to be used when developing clinical practice guidelines.
methodsA systematic literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang Database was performed to identify studies on questionnaires evaluating patient's values and preferences. The articles that used fully structured questionnaires or scales with standardized questions and answer options were included. We assessed the questionnaires' construction and content with a psychometric methodology and summarized the domains and items about patient's preferences and values.
resultsA total of 7,008 records were retrieved by the search strategy and scanned, and 20 articles were finally included. Of these, 10 (50%) articles described the process of item generation and only four questionnaires (20%, 4/20) mentioned the pilot testing. Regarding "validity", seven questionnaires (35%, 7/20) assessed validity and only one (5%, 1/20) questionnaire assessed internal consistency, with Cornbrash's α values of 0.74-0.87. For "acceptability", the time to complete the questionnaires ranged from 10 to 30 minutes and only nine studies (45%, 9/20) reported the response rates. In addition, the results of domains and items about patient's preferences and values showed that the "effectiveness" domain was the most considered item in the patient's value questionnaire followed by "safety", "prognosis", and others, whereas the least considered domain was "physician's experience".
conclusionOnly a few studies have developed questionnaires with rigorous psychometric methods to measure patient's preferences and values. Currently, still there is no valid or reliable questionnaire for patient's preferences and values for use when developing clinical practice guidelines. Further study should be conducted to develop standardized instruments to measure patient's preferences and values. This study provides the domains and items that may be used in formulating questionnaires about patient's preferences and values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.