Research methodologies for eliciting patients' preferences in invasive procedures: a scoping review.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1007/s00423-024-03520-8
Hala Muaddi, Olivia Lovrics, Richard Jb Walker, Charles de Mestral, Avery Nathens, Therese A Stukel, Paul J Karanicolas
{"title":"Research methodologies for eliciting patients' preferences in invasive procedures: a scoping review.","authors":"Hala Muaddi, Olivia Lovrics, Richard Jb Walker, Charles de Mestral, Avery Nathens, Therese A Stukel, Paul J Karanicolas","doi":"10.1007/s00423-024-03520-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endpoints that patients and clinicians consider important may differ based on patients' preferences and values. Several methods are available to elicit patient preferences in a succinct and methodologically valid manner.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We conducted a scoping review of methods used to elicit patient preferences in invasive procedures to provide a framework for researchers and clinicians to incorporate these measures into future efforts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and health and psychological instruments database were searched from inception until September 2020. Articles that examined patient preferences for any invasive procedure were eligible for inclusion. Selection and extraction were completed in duplicate. Preference elicitation methods were identified and summarized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three hundred ninety-four articles (n = 76,921 patients) were included representing several surgical specialties. Of included studies, 11.7% (n = 46) used both quantitative and qualitative methods, 81.2% (n = 320) used quantitative methods only, and 7.1% (n = 28) used qualitative methods only to elicit preferences. The most frequently employed quantitative method to elicit preferences was simple choice selection, while one-on-one interviews with participants was the most frequently used qualitative method. Preference elicitation was the primary outcome in 74.6% (n = 294) of included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There are several methods to elicit patient preferences in surgical research. Qualitative methods are valuable for exploring views and generating consensus statements. Quantitative methods are better suited for assessing relative preferences, establishing preference thresholds, or ascertaining the presence of preferences. The choice of method should align with the specific research objectives.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":"409 1","pages":"328"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03520-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endpoints that patients and clinicians consider important may differ based on patients' preferences and values. Several methods are available to elicit patient preferences in a succinct and methodologically valid manner.

Purpose: We conducted a scoping review of methods used to elicit patient preferences in invasive procedures to provide a framework for researchers and clinicians to incorporate these measures into future efforts.

Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and health and psychological instruments database were searched from inception until September 2020. Articles that examined patient preferences for any invasive procedure were eligible for inclusion. Selection and extraction were completed in duplicate. Preference elicitation methods were identified and summarized.

Results: Three hundred ninety-four articles (n = 76,921 patients) were included representing several surgical specialties. Of included studies, 11.7% (n = 46) used both quantitative and qualitative methods, 81.2% (n = 320) used quantitative methods only, and 7.1% (n = 28) used qualitative methods only to elicit preferences. The most frequently employed quantitative method to elicit preferences was simple choice selection, while one-on-one interviews with participants was the most frequently used qualitative method. Preference elicitation was the primary outcome in 74.6% (n = 294) of included studies.

Conclusion: There are several methods to elicit patient preferences in surgical research. Qualitative methods are valuable for exploring views and generating consensus statements. Quantitative methods are better suited for assessing relative preferences, establishing preference thresholds, or ascertaining the presence of preferences. The choice of method should align with the specific research objectives.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在侵入性手术中激发患者偏好的研究方法:范围综述。
背景:患者和临床医生认为重要的终点可能因患者的偏好和价值观而异。目的:我们对有创手术中用于激发患者偏好的方法进行了一次范围界定综述,为研究人员和临床医生将这些措施纳入未来工作提供了一个框架:方法:检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 以及健康和心理工具数据库,检索时间从开始至 2020 年 9 月。研究患者对任何侵入性手术偏好的文章均符合纳入条件。筛选和提取工作一式两份。确定并总结了偏好激发方法:共纳入 394 篇文章(n = 76,921 名患者),代表了多个外科专科。在纳入的研究中,11.7%(n = 46)的研究同时使用了定量和定性方法,81.2%(n = 320)的研究仅使用了定量方法,7.1%(n = 28)的研究仅使用了定性方法来诱导偏好。最常用的定量方法是简单选择,而与参与者进行一对一访谈则是最常用的定性方法。在所纳入的研究中,74.6%(n=294)的研究是以患者偏好为主要结果的:结论:在外科手术研究中,有多种方法可以激发患者的偏好。定性方法对于探索观点和形成共识声明很有价值。定量方法更适合评估相对偏好、建立偏好阈值或确定偏好的存在。方法的选择应符合具体的研究目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
期刊最新文献
Preoperative factors predicting outcomes in patients with suspected perihilar cholangiocarcinoma referred for curative resection- a single-center 10-year experience. Low vs. conventional intra-abdominal pressure in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective cohort study. Comparative effectiveness totally endoscopic thyroidectomy via completely submental tri-hole approach and transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy without insufflation. Curative treatment for oligometastatic gastroesophageal cancer- results of a prospective multicenter study. New purse-string suture clamp and multi-functional seal cap: a simple intracorporeal circular-stapled oesophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1