Elizabeth H Golembiewski, Montserrat Leon-Garcia, Derek Loy Gravholt, Juan P Brito, Erica S Spatz, Markus A Bendel, Victor M Montori, Andrea P Maraboto, Sandra A Hartasanchez, Ian G Hargraves
{"title":"比较在决策点识别上市后患者偏好的方法:考虑使用脊髓刺激器设备的慢性疼痛患者的观点。","authors":"Elizabeth H Golembiewski, Montserrat Leon-Garcia, Derek Loy Gravholt, Juan P Brito, Erica S Spatz, Markus A Bendel, Victor M Montori, Andrea P Maraboto, Sandra A Hartasanchez, Ian G Hargraves","doi":"10.2147/PPA.S431378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare three methods for identifying patient preferences (MIPPs) at the point of decision-making: analysis of video-recorded patient-clinician encounters, post-encounter interviews, and post-encounter surveys.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>For the decision of whether to use a spinal cord stimulator device (SCS), a video coding scheme, interview guide, and patient survey were iteratively developed with 30 SCS decision-making encounters in a tertiary academic medical center pain clinic. Burke's grammar of motives was used to classify the attributed source or justification for a potential preference for each preference block. To compare the MIPPs, 13 patients' encounters with their clinician were video recorded and subsequently analyzed by 4 coders using the final video coding scheme. Six of these patients were interviewed, and 7 surveyed, immediately following their encounters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For videos, an average of 66 (range 33-106) sets of utterances potentially indicating a patient preference (a preference block), surveys 33 (range 32-34), and interviews 25 (range 18-30) were identified. Thirty-eight unique themes (75 subthemes), each a preference topic, were identified from videos, surveys 19 themes (12 subthemes), and interviews 39 themes (54 subthemes). The proportion of preference blocks that were judged as expressing a preference that was clearly important to the patient or affected their decision was highest for interviews (72.8%), surveys (68.0%), and videos (27.0%). Videos mostly attributed preferences to the patient's situation (scene) (65%); interviews, the act of receiving or living with SCS (43%); surveys, the purpose of SCS (40%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MIPPs vary in the type of preferences identified and the clarity of expressed preferences in their data sets. The choice of which MIPP to use depends on projects' goals and resources, recognizing that the choice of MIPP may affect which preferences are found.</p>","PeriodicalId":19972,"journal":{"name":"Patient preference and adherence","volume":"18 ","pages":"1325-1344"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11215661/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Methods for Identifying Post-Market Patient Preferences at the Point of Decision-Making: Insights from Patients with Chronic Pain Considering a Spinal Cord Stimulator Device.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth H Golembiewski, Montserrat Leon-Garcia, Derek Loy Gravholt, Juan P Brito, Erica S Spatz, Markus A Bendel, Victor M Montori, Andrea P Maraboto, Sandra A Hartasanchez, Ian G Hargraves\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/PPA.S431378\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare three methods for identifying patient preferences (MIPPs) at the point of decision-making: analysis of video-recorded patient-clinician encounters, post-encounter interviews, and post-encounter surveys.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>For the decision of whether to use a spinal cord stimulator device (SCS), a video coding scheme, interview guide, and patient survey were iteratively developed with 30 SCS decision-making encounters in a tertiary academic medical center pain clinic. Burke's grammar of motives was used to classify the attributed source or justification for a potential preference for each preference block. To compare the MIPPs, 13 patients' encounters with their clinician were video recorded and subsequently analyzed by 4 coders using the final video coding scheme. Six of these patients were interviewed, and 7 surveyed, immediately following their encounters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For videos, an average of 66 (range 33-106) sets of utterances potentially indicating a patient preference (a preference block), surveys 33 (range 32-34), and interviews 25 (range 18-30) were identified. Thirty-eight unique themes (75 subthemes), each a preference topic, were identified from videos, surveys 19 themes (12 subthemes), and interviews 39 themes (54 subthemes). The proportion of preference blocks that were judged as expressing a preference that was clearly important to the patient or affected their decision was highest for interviews (72.8%), surveys (68.0%), and videos (27.0%). Videos mostly attributed preferences to the patient's situation (scene) (65%); interviews, the act of receiving or living with SCS (43%); surveys, the purpose of SCS (40%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MIPPs vary in the type of preferences identified and the clarity of expressed preferences in their data sets. The choice of which MIPP to use depends on projects' goals and resources, recognizing that the choice of MIPP may affect which preferences are found.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19972,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient preference and adherence\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"1325-1344\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11215661/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient preference and adherence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S431378\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient preference and adherence","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S431378","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing Methods for Identifying Post-Market Patient Preferences at the Point of Decision-Making: Insights from Patients with Chronic Pain Considering a Spinal Cord Stimulator Device.
Purpose: To compare three methods for identifying patient preferences (MIPPs) at the point of decision-making: analysis of video-recorded patient-clinician encounters, post-encounter interviews, and post-encounter surveys.
Patients and methods: For the decision of whether to use a spinal cord stimulator device (SCS), a video coding scheme, interview guide, and patient survey were iteratively developed with 30 SCS decision-making encounters in a tertiary academic medical center pain clinic. Burke's grammar of motives was used to classify the attributed source or justification for a potential preference for each preference block. To compare the MIPPs, 13 patients' encounters with their clinician were video recorded and subsequently analyzed by 4 coders using the final video coding scheme. Six of these patients were interviewed, and 7 surveyed, immediately following their encounters.
Results: For videos, an average of 66 (range 33-106) sets of utterances potentially indicating a patient preference (a preference block), surveys 33 (range 32-34), and interviews 25 (range 18-30) were identified. Thirty-eight unique themes (75 subthemes), each a preference topic, were identified from videos, surveys 19 themes (12 subthemes), and interviews 39 themes (54 subthemes). The proportion of preference blocks that were judged as expressing a preference that was clearly important to the patient or affected their decision was highest for interviews (72.8%), surveys (68.0%), and videos (27.0%). Videos mostly attributed preferences to the patient's situation (scene) (65%); interviews, the act of receiving or living with SCS (43%); surveys, the purpose of SCS (40%).
Conclusion: MIPPs vary in the type of preferences identified and the clarity of expressed preferences in their data sets. The choice of which MIPP to use depends on projects' goals and resources, recognizing that the choice of MIPP may affect which preferences are found.
期刊介绍:
Patient Preference and Adherence is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal that focuses on the growing importance of patient preference and adherence throughout the therapeutic continuum. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of reviews, original research, modeling and clinical studies across all therapeutic areas. Patient satisfaction, acceptability, quality of life, compliance, persistence and their role in developing new therapeutic modalities and compounds to optimize clinical outcomes for existing disease states are major areas of interest for the journal.
As of 1st April 2019, Patient Preference and Adherence will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.