Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35904149›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2023

Patient-Preference Diagnostics: Adapting Stated-Preference Methods to Inform Effective Shared Decision Making.

Juan Marcos Gonzalez Sepulveda, F Reed Johnson, Shelby D Reed, Charles Muiruri, Carolyn A Hutyra, Richard C Mather

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Patient Reasoning: Patients' and Care Partners' Perceptions of Diagnostic Accuracy in Emergency Care.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Juan Marcos Gonzalez SepulvedaDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5386-0907
F Reed JohnsonDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7572-2150
Shelby D ReedDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7654-4464
Charles MuiruriDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Carolyn A HutyraOptimal Care at Optum.ORCID 0000-0002-3541-1104
Richard C MatherDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke School Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Addressing barriers to anti-hypertensive medication adherence among persons living who have achieved viral suppressionK01HL159052 · NHLBI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MUIRURI, CHARLES · 2021 to 2025
$736k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL159052
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile clinical practice guidelines underscore the need to incorporate patient preferences in clinical decision making, incorporating meaningful assessment of patient preferences in clinical encounters is challenging. Structured approaches that combine quantitative patient preferences and clinical evidence could facilitate effective patient-provider communication and more patient-centric health care decisions. Adaptive conjoint or stated-preference approaches can identify individual preference parameters, but they can require a relatively large number of choice questions or simplifying assumptions about the error with which preferences are elicited.

methodWe propose an approach to efficiently diagnose preferences of patients for outcomes of treatment alternatives by leveraging prior information on patient preferences to generate adaptive choice questions to identify a patient's proximity to known preference phenotypes. This information can be used for measuring sensitivity and specificity, much like any other diagnostic procedure. We simulated responses with varying levels of choice errors for hypothetical patients with specific preference profiles to measure sensitivity and specificity of a 2-question preference diagnostic.

resultsWe identified 4 classes representing distinct preference profiles for patients who participated in a previous first-time anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD) survey. Posterior probabilities of class membership at the end of a 2-question sequence ranged from 87% to 89%. We found that specificity and sensitivity of the 2-question sequences were robust to respondent errors. The questions appeared to have better specificity than sensitivity.

conclusionsOur results suggest that this approach could help diagnose patient preferences for treatments for a condition such as FTASD with acceptable precision using as few as 2 choice questions. Such preference-diagnostic tools could be used to improve and document alignment of treatment choices and patient preferences. HIGHLIGHTS: Approaches that combine patient preferences and clinical evidence can facilitate effective patient-provider communication and more patient-centric healthcare decisions. However, diagnosing individual-level preferences is challenging, and no formal diagnostic tools exist.We propose a structured approach to efficiently diagnose patient preferences based on prior information on the distribution of patient preferences in a population.We generated a 2-question test of preferences for the outcomes associated with the treatment of first-time anterior shoulder dislocation.The diagnosis of preferences can help physicians discuss relevant aspects of the treatment options and proactively address patient concerns during the clinical encounter.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedShoulder DislocationChoice BehaviorDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareHumansPatient PreferenceSurveys and Questionnairesdiscrete-choice experimentexperimental designpreference diagnosticshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID35904149
PMCPMC12685012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.