ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020
Proposal for a Framework to Enable Elicitation of Preferences for Clients in Need of Long-Term Care.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-efficacy, personal autonomy, life arrangements, and health priorities/preferences in psychological distress: a predictive, variance-based PLS-SEM structural model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Clients and professionals elicit long-term care preferences by using 'What matters to me': A process evaluation in the Netherlands.Health & social care in the community · 2022Article
- What Matters to Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis When Facing Medical or Non-Medical Treatment Decisions?Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCollaborative deliberation comprises personal engagement, recognition of alternative actions, comparative learning, preference elicitation, and preference integration. Collaborative deliberation may be improved by assisting preference elicitation during shared decision-making. This study proposes a framework for preference elicitation to facilitate collaborative deliberation in long-term care consultations.
methodsFirst, a literature overview was conducted comprising current models for the elicitation of preferences in health and social care settings. The models were reviewed and compared. Second, qualitative research was applied to explore those issues that matter most to clients in long-term care. Data were collected from clients in long-term care, comprising 16 interviews, 3 focus groups, 79 client records, and 200 online client reports. The qualitative analysis followed a deductive approach. The results of the literature overview and qualitative research were combined.
resultsBased on the literature overview, five overarching domains of preferences were described: "Health", "Daily life", "Family and friends", "Living conditions", and "Finances". The credibility of these domains was confirmed by qualitative data analysis. During interviews, clients addressed issues that matter in their lives, including a "click" with their care professional, safety, contact with loved ones, and assistance with daily structure and activities. These data were used to determine the content of the domains.
conclusionA framework for preference elicitation in long-term care is proposed. This framework could be useful for clients and professionals in preference elicitation during collaborative deliberation.
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.