Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34177261›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2021

Taking into Account Patient Preferences: A Consensus Study on the Assessment of Psychological Dimensions Within Patient Preference Studies.

Selena Russo, Dario Monzani, Cathy Anne Pinto, Laura Vergani, Giulia Marton, Marie Falahee, Gwenda Simons, Chiara Whichello, Ulrik Kihlbom, Gabriella Pravettoni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

10 authors.

Selena Russo *Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3024-3316
Dario Monzani *Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9544-2933
Cathy Anne PintoDepartment of Pharmacoepidemiology, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7793-1706
Laura VerganiApplied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Giulia MartonApplied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Marie FalaheeRheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing (IIA), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5928-486X
Gwenda SimonsRheumatology Research Group, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing (IIA), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Chiara WhichelloErasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ulrik Kihlbom *Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3823-8263
Gabriella Pravettoni *Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4843-4663

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient preferences are gaining recognition among key stakeholders involved in benefit-risk decision-making along the medical product lifecycle. However, one of the main challenges of integrating patient preferences in benefit-risk decision-making is understanding differences in patient preference, which may be attributable to clinical characteristics (eg age, medical history) or psychosocial factors. Measuring the latter may provide valuable information to decision-makers but there is limited guidance regarding which psychological dimensions may influence patient preferences and which psychological instruments should be considered for inclusion in patient preference studies. This paper aims to provide such guidance by advancing evidence and consensus-based recommendations and considerations. Findings of a recent systematic review on psychological constructs having an impact on patients' preferences and health-related decisions were expanded with input from an expert group (n = 11). These data were then used as the basis for final recommendations developed through two rounds of formal evaluation via an online Delphi consensus process involving international experts in the field of psychology, medical decision-making, and risk communication (n = 27). Three classes of recommendations emerged. Eleven psychological constructs reached consensus to be recommended for inclusion with the strongest consensus existing for health literacy, numeracy, illness perception and treatment-related beliefs. We also proposed a set of descriptive and checklist criteria to appraise available psychological measures to assist researchers and other stakeholders in including psychological assessment when planning patient preference studies. These recommendations can guide researchers and other stakeholders when designing and interpreting patient preference studies with a potential high impact in clinical practice and medical product benefit-risk decision-making processes.

Indexed as

decision-makingpatient preferencespatients reported outcomespsychological assessment

Identifiers

PMID34177261
PMCPMC8219660

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.