Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32676998›Full record

ArticleThe patient2020

Stakeholder-Engaged Derivation of Patient-Informed Value Elements.

Susan dosReis, Beverly Butler, Juan Caicedo, Annie Kennedy, Yoon Duk Hong, Chengchen Zhang, Julia F Slejko

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Susan dosReisDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, 220 Arch Street, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. sdosreis@rx.umaryland.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2210-6650
Beverly ButlerSWATS, LLC, Manchester, MD, USA.
Juan CaicedoHeritage Care Inc, Hyattsville, MD, USA.
Annie KennedyEveryLife Foundation for Rare Diseases, Washington, DC, USA.
Yoon Duk HongDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, 220 Arch Street, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Chengchen ZhangDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, 220 Arch Street, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
Julia F SlejkoDepartment of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, 220 Arch Street, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA.
University of Maryland, Baltimore · USHyattsville Community Development Corporation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOur objective was to identify patient-informed value elements that can be used to make value assessment more patient centered.

methodsMixed methods were used iteratively to collect and integrate qualitative and quantitative data in a four-stage process: identification (stage 1), prioritization (stage 2), refinement (stage 3), and synthesis (stage 4). Qualitative methods involved one-on-one discussions with 14 patient stakeholders from diverse medical communities representing mental health, osteoporosis, blindness, lupus, eczema, oncology, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hypercholesterolemia. Stakeholders completed guided activities to prioritize elements important to patient healthcare decision making. Responses were summarized descriptively as frequencies and proportions.

resultsStakeholders identified 94 value elements in stage 1. Of these, 42 elements remained following the stage 2 prioritization and the stage 3 refinement. During the stage 4 synthesis, the 42 patient-informed value elements comprised the principal set of value elements that were organized by 11 categories: tolerability, disease burden, forecasting, accessibility of care/treatment, healthcare service delivery, cost incurred on the patient, cost incurred on the family, personal well-being, stigma, social well-being, and personal values. The categories fell under five domains: short- and long-term effects of treatment, treatment access, cost, life impact, and social impact.

conclusionsIn total, 75% of the value elements in the conceptual model were patient derived and distinct from the elements used in existing value frameworks. Recommendations for tailoring, quantifying, and applying the patient-informed value elements in distinct patient communities are provided. This provides a foundation from which future research may test patient-informed value elements in existing value frameworks and economic evaluations.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePatient PreferenceStakeholder ParticipationHumansInterviews as TopicPatient-Centered CareQualitative ResearchSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID32676998
PMCPMC7479003
OpenAlexW3042706716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.