ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Preoperative information needs and preferences of refractive surgery patients: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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.
- Operation Room Pre-Experience Service Willingness of Surgical Patients: A Mixed Method Research.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK in the SMILE era: a mini review of patient-centered procedure selection.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Demographic and clinical factors associated with intraoperative patient cooperation during LASIK.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Individualized preoperative information can enhance patient satisfaction. However, existing studies have methodological limitations, largely adopting a healthcare "supply-side" perspective and lacking a patient-centered approach. Moreover, systematic quantitative assessments of information preferences among refractive surgery patients remain scarce. Settings: Department of Ophthalmology at a tertiary general hospital in Luzhou and a tertiary ophthalmic specialized hospital in Shenzhen, China. Participants: A total of 119 patients in the pilot survey phase, and 567 patients in the formal survey phase. Methods: Attributes and levels were identified through literature review, qualitative interviews, expert panel consultation and importance ranking. An orthogonal design was generated using Ngene for pilot choice sets, with a D-efficient design subsequently optimized for the main survey. Model estimation was performed in Stata 17.0, commencing with a multinomial logit (MNL) model and a random parameters logit (RPL) model to capture unobserved preference heterogeneity. A latent class logit (LCL) model was subsequently estimated to identify preference-based subgroups. Attribute interaction effects were examined to explore potential complementarities and substitutabilities. Finally, Scenario prediction analysis were conducted to predict the uptake probabilities of alternative information packages. Results: A total of 10,200 choice observations (425 patients) passed the consistency check. Psychological support, mode of information interaction feedback, and duration of information provision were identified as the core driving factors, and two heterogeneous latent subgroups were identified. Joint analysis of attribute interactions showed significant overall effects [ Conclusion: Patients value humanized care, efficient communication, and respect for their time. Clinical education should shift from a "one-size-fits-all" approach to individualized optimization, enhancing overall utility through optimized combinations. The ideal service model constructed in this study provides evidence-based guidance for optimizing preoperative education processes.
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.