Using discrete choice experiments to develop and deliver patient-centered psychological interventions: a systematic review.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2021-06-01 Epub Date: 2020-01-22 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2020.1715813
Meghan E McGrady, Ahna L H Pai, Lisa A Prosser
{"title":"Using discrete choice experiments to develop and deliver patient-centered psychological interventions: a systematic review.","authors":"Meghan E McGrady,&nbsp;Ahna L H Pai,&nbsp;Lisa A Prosser","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2020.1715813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Developing and/or tailoring psychological interventions to align with patient preferences is a critical component of patient-centered care and has the potential to improve patient engagement and treatment outcomes. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a quantitative method of assessing patient preferences that offer numerous strengths (i.e., ability to account for trade-offs), but are not routinely incorporated into health psychology coursework, likely leaving many unaware of the potential benefits of this methodology. To highlight the potential applications of DCEs within health psychology, this systematic review synthesises previous efforts to utilise DCEs to inform the design of patient-centered psychological care, defined as interventions targeting psychological (e.g., depression, anxiety) or behavioural health (e.g., pain management, adherence) concerns. Literature searches were conducted in March 2017 and November 2019 for articles reporting on DCEs using the terms 'discrete choice', 'conjoint', or 'stated preference'. Thirty-nine articles met all inclusion criteria and used DCEs to understand patient preferences regarding psychosocial clinical services (<i>n</i> = 12), lifestyle behaviour change interventions (<i>n</i> = 11), HIV prevention and/or intervention services (<i>n</i> = 10), disease self-management programmes (<i>n</i> = 4), or other interventions (<i>n</i> = 2). Clinical implications as well as limitations and directions for future research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":"15 2","pages":"314-332"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17437199.2020.1715813","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2020.1715813","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Developing and/or tailoring psychological interventions to align with patient preferences is a critical component of patient-centered care and has the potential to improve patient engagement and treatment outcomes. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a quantitative method of assessing patient preferences that offer numerous strengths (i.e., ability to account for trade-offs), but are not routinely incorporated into health psychology coursework, likely leaving many unaware of the potential benefits of this methodology. To highlight the potential applications of DCEs within health psychology, this systematic review synthesises previous efforts to utilise DCEs to inform the design of patient-centered psychological care, defined as interventions targeting psychological (e.g., depression, anxiety) or behavioural health (e.g., pain management, adherence) concerns. Literature searches were conducted in March 2017 and November 2019 for articles reporting on DCEs using the terms 'discrete choice', 'conjoint', or 'stated preference'. Thirty-nine articles met all inclusion criteria and used DCEs to understand patient preferences regarding psychosocial clinical services (n = 12), lifestyle behaviour change interventions (n = 11), HIV prevention and/or intervention services (n = 10), disease self-management programmes (n = 4), or other interventions (n = 2). Clinical implications as well as limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

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
使用离散选择实验开发和提供以病人为中心的心理干预:系统回顾。
开发和/或定制心理干预措施以配合患者偏好是以患者为中心的护理的关键组成部分,并有可能提高患者参与度和治疗结果。离散选择实验(dce)是一种评估患者偏好的定量方法,它提供了许多优势(即,考虑权衡的能力),但通常不纳入健康心理学课程,可能使许多人不知道这种方法的潜在好处。为了强调dce在健康心理学中的潜在应用,本系统综述综合了以前利用dce为以患者为中心的心理护理设计提供信息的努力,定义为针对心理(如抑郁、焦虑)或行为健康(如疼痛管理、依从性)问题的干预措施。文献检索于2017年3月和2019年11月对使用“离散选择”、“联合”或“声明偏好”等术语报道dce的文章进行了检索。39篇文章符合所有纳入标准,并使用DCEs了解患者对心理社会临床服务(n = 12)、生活方式行为改变干预(n = 11)、艾滋病毒预防和/或干预服务(n = 10)、疾病自我管理计划(n = 4)或其他干预(n = 2)的偏好。讨论了临床意义、局限性和未来研究方向。
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
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
期刊最新文献
The prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology and diagnosis in burn survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Yoga as an intervention for stress: a meta-analysis. Analytical decisions pose moral questions. Components of multiple health behaviour change interventions for patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-regression of randomized trials. Identifying the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review of qualitative studies.
×
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