Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37874464›Full record

ArticleThe patient2024

Role Preferences in Medical Decision Making: Relevance and Implications for Health Preference Research.

Janine A van Til, Alison Pearce, Semra Ozdemir, Ilene L Hollin, Holly L Peay, Albert W Wu, Jan Ostermann, Ken Deal, Benjamin M Craig

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Nothing about us, without us? A reflection on and call for involving children in the process of valuing child health.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

9 authors.

Janine A van TilDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Center, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences (BMS), University of Twente, Technohal, Room 3304, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands. j.a.vantil@utwente.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-5416-5893
Alison PearceThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Semra OzdemirDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Ilene L HollinDepartment of Health Services Administration and Policy, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Holly L PeayGenomics and Translational Research Center, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Albert W WuDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jan OstermannDepartment of Health Services, Policy and Management, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Ken DealDeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Benjamin M CraigDepartment of Economics, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health preference research (HPR) is being increasingly conducted to better understand patient preferences for medical decisions. However, patients vary in their desire to play an active role in medical decisions. Until now, few studies have considered patients' preferred roles in decision making. In this opinion paper, we advocate for HPR researchers to assess and account for role preferences in their studies, to increase the relevance of their work for medical and shared decision making. We provide recommendations on how role preferences can be elicited and integrated with health preferences: (1) in formative research prior to a health preference study that aims to inform medical decisions or decision makers, (2a) in the development of health preference instruments, for instance by incorporating a role preference instrument and (2b) by clarifying the respondent's role in the decision prior to the preference elicitation task or by including role preferences as an attribute in the task itself, and (3) in statistical analysis by including random parameters or latent classes to raise awareness of heterogeneity in role preferences and how it relates to health preferences. Finally, we suggest redefining the decision process as a model that integrates the role and health preferences of the different parties that are involved. We believe that the field of HPR would benefit from learning more about the extent to which role preferences relate to health preferences, within the context of medical and shared decision making.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingPatient PreferenceDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedHumansPatient ParticipationPatientsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID37874464
PMCPMC10769916

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.