Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32229460›Full record

ReviewInteractive journal of medical research2020

Improving Patient Preference Elicitation by Applying Concepts From the Consumer Research Field: Narrative Literature Review.

Niki Ver Donck, Geert Vander Stichele, Isabelle Huys

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Interactive journal of medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2021
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Niki Ver DonckDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2357-3453
Geert Vander SticheleHealth Economics Consultancy, ISMS, Turnhout, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9913-1163
Isabelle HuysDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4738-8298
AZ Turnhout · BEKU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough preference research finds its origins in consumer research, preference elicitation methods have increasingly attracted attention in different decision-making contexts in health care. Simulating real-life decision making is believed to be important during consumer preference elicitation.

objectiveThe aims of this study were to compare the process of decision making between patients and consumers and to identify methods from the consumer research field that could be applied in patient preference elicitation.

methodsA narrative literature review was performed to identify preference elicitation concepts from a consumer context that could offer improvements in health care.

resultsThe process of decision making between patients and consumers was highly comparable. The following five concepts from the consumer research field that could effectively simulate a real-life decision-making process for applications in health care were identified: simulating alternatives, self-reflection, feedback-driven exploration, separated (adaptive) dual response, and arranging profiles in blocks.

conclusionsOwing to similarities in the decision-making process, patients could be considered as a subgroup of consumers, suggesting that preference elicitation concepts from the consumer field may be relevant in health care. Five concepts that help to simulate real-life decision making have the potential to improve patient preference elicitation. However, the extent to which real decision-making contexts can be mimicked in health care remains unknown.

Indexed as

consumer research methodsdecision makingpreference elicitation methods

Identifiers

PMID32229460
PMCPMC7157502
OpenAlexW3000838157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.