Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Systematic Review to Identify the Use of Preference Elicitation Methods in Healthcare Decision Making

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Preference elicitation methods help to increase patient-centred medical decision making (MDM) by measuring benefit and value. Preferences can be applied in decisions regarding reimbursement, including health technology assessment (HTA); market access, including benefit–risk assessment (BRA); and clinical care. These three decision contexts have different requirements for use and elicitation of preferences.

Objectives

This systematic review identified studies using preference elicitation methods and summarized methodological and practical characteristics within the requirements of the three contexts.

Methods

The search terms included those related to MDM and patient preferences. Only articles with original data from quantitative preference elicitation methods were included.

Results

The selected articles (n = 322) included 379 preference elicitation methods, comprising matching methods [MM] (n = 71, 18.7 %), discrete choice experiments [DCEs] (n = 96, 25.3 %), multi-criteria decision analysis (n = 12, 3.2 %) and other methods (n = 200, 52.8 %; i.e. rating scales, which provide estimates inconsistent with utility theory). Most publications of preference elicitation methods had an intended use in clinical decisions (n = 134, 40 %). Fewer preference studies had an intended use in HTA (n = 68, 20 %) or BRA (n = 12, 4 %). In clinical decisions, rating, ranking, visual analogue scales and direct choice are used most often. In HTA, DCEs and MM are both used frequently, and elicitation of preferences in BRA was limited to DCEs.

Conclusion

Relatively simple preference methods are often adequate in clinical decisions because they are easy to administer and have a low cognitive burden. MM and DCE fulfil the requirements of HTA and BRA but are complex for respondents. No preference elicitation methods with a low cognitive burden could adequately inform HTA and BRA decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Litva A, et al. ‘The public is too subjective’: public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54(12):1825–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Coulter A. Patient engagement—what works? J Ambul Care Manag. 2012;35(2):80–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith M, Higgs J, Ellis E. Factors influencing clinical decision making, in clinical reasoning in the health professions. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2008. p. 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bridges J, Jones C. Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):30–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gagnon M, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: a systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):31–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Til J, Ijzerman M. Why should regulators consider using patient preferences in benefit–risk assessment? Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(1):1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. European Medical Agency (2013). The patient’s voice in the evaluation of medicines: how patients can contribute to assessment of benefit and risk. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2013/10/WC500153276.pdf. Accessed 11 Jul 2013.

  8. Bridges J, et al. Patient preference methods—a patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connect. 2007;12(6):4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1944.

  10. Carson R, Louviere J. A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Resour Econ. 2011;49(4):539–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ali S, Ronaldson S. Ordinal preference elicitation methods in health economics and health services research: using discrete choice experiments and ranking methods. Br Med Bull. 2012;103:21–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Meißner M, Decker R. An empirical comparison of CBC and AHP for measuring consumer preferences. In: International Symposium of Analytical Hierarchy Process; 2009; Pittsburgh.

  13. Green P, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consum Res. 1978;5:103–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Louviere J. Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 1988;22(1):93–119.

  15. Hauber A, Fairchild A, Johnson F. Quantifying benefit–risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(4):319–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dolan J. Multi-criteria clinical decision support. Patient. 2010;3(4):229–48.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ryan M, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):186.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ryan M, Skåtun D, Major K. Using discrete choice experiments to go beyond clinical outcomes when evaluating clinical practice. In: Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M (eds). Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care,. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008:101–16.

  19. Esfandiari S, et al. Implant overdentures for edentulous elders: study of patient preference. Gerodontology. 2009;26(1):3–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Montgomery AA, Harding J, Fahey T. Shared decision making in hypertension: the impact of patient preferences on treatment choice. Fam Pract. 2001;18(3):309–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS. Preferences for ‘life-saving’ programmes: small for all or gambling for the prize? Health Econ. 2008;17(6):709–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sommers B, et al. Decision analysis using individual patient preferences to determine optimal treatment for localized prostate cancer. Cancer. 2007;110(10):2210–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ubel P, et al. Public preferences for prevention versus cure. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18:141–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Hallan S, et al. Quality of life after cerebrovascular stroke: a systematic study of patients’ preferences for different functional outcomes. J Intern Med. 1999;246(3):309–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Marti J. Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(5):533–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brundage MD, et al. Using a treatment-tradeoff method to elicit preferences for the treatment of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(3):256–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Singh J, et al. Medical decision-making and the patient: understanding preference patterns for growth hormone therapy using conjoint analysis. Med Care. 1998;36(8 Suppl):AS31–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Swancutt DR, Greenfield SM, Wilson S, Women’s colposcopy experience and preferences: a mixed methods study. BMC Womens Health. 2008;8:2.

  29. Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Estimation of a preference-based carer experience scale. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31(3):458–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Chapman GB, et al. A multi-attribute model of prostate cancer patients’ preferences for health states. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(3):171–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hummel MJM, et al. Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment. Patient. 2012;5(4):225–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cunich M, et al. Integrating evidence and individual preferences using a web-based multi-criteria decision analytic tool: an application to prostate cancer screening. Patient. 2011;4(3):153–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychol Med. 1988;18(4):1007–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Albert N. Patient or physician preferences for decision analysis: the prenatal genetic testing decision. Med Decis Mak. 1999;19(1):66–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Davis M, Hoffman J, Hsu J. Impact of patient acuity on preference for information and autonomy in decision making. Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6(8):781–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ruland C. Decision support for patient preference-based care planning effects on nursing care and patient outcomes. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6(4):304–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Fiks A, et al. Development of an instrument to measure parents’ preferences and goals for the treatment of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Acad Pediatr. 2012;12(5):445–55.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Guerlain S, Hugine A, Wang L. A comparison of 4 epinephrine autoinjector delivery systems: usability and patient preference. Ann Allerg Asthma Immunol. 2010;104(2):172–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P. Cure me even if it kills me: preferences for invasive cancer treatment. Med Decis Mak. 2005;25(6):614–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. De Boer A, et al. Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: patients’ utilities and treatment preferences. Br J Cancer. 2002;86(6):851–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Johnson FR, et al. Quantifying women’s stated benefit–risk trade-off preferences for IBS treatment outcomes. Value Health. 2010;13(4):418–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bewtra M, et al. Patient preferences for surgical versus medical therapy for ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20(1):103–14.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hauber AB, et al. Patients’ benefit–risk preferences for chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura therapies. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44(3):479–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sanelli PC, et al. Work-in-progress toward incorporating patients’ preferences in practice guidelines for imaging aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(5):535–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Carroll AE, Downs SM. Improving decision analyses: parent preferences (utility values) for pediatric health outcomes. J Pediatr. 2009;155(1):21–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Netten A, et al. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(16):1–166.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Desser AS, Olsen JA, Grepperud S. Eliciting preferences for prioritizing treatment of rare diseases: the role of opportunity costs and framing effects. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(11):1051–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mason H, Baker R, Donaldson C. Understanding public preferences for prioritizing health care interventions in England: does the type of health gain matter? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16(2):81–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ. 2000;9(2):137–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Beusterien K, et al. Patient preferences for chemotherapies used in breast cancer. Int J Womens Health. 2012;4:279–87.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Aristides M, et al. Conjoint analysis of a new chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced colorectal cancer. PharmacoEconomics. 2002;20(11):775–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Hiligsmann M, et al. Health technology assessment in osteoporosis. Calcif Tissue Int. 2013;93(1):1–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Laba TL, et al. Patient preferences for adherence to treatment for osteoarthritis: the Medication Decisions in Osteoarthritis Study (MEDOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14(160):1471–2474.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Benjamin L, et al. Physicians’ preferences for prescribing oral and intravenous anticancer drugs: a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(6):912–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Witticke, D et al. Do we prescribe what patients prefer? Pilot study to assess patient preferences for medication regimen characteristics. Patient Prefer Adher, 2012;6:679–84.

  57. Rhodes E, et al. Preferences for type 2 diabetes health states among adolescents with or at risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pediatr Diabetes. 2011;12(8):724–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Johnson F, et al. Are gastroenterologists less tolerant of treatment risks than patients? Benefit–risk preferences in Crohn’s disease management. J Manag Care Pharm. 2010;16(8):616–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Vermeulen H, et al. Preferences of patients, doctors, and nurses regarding wound dressing characteristics: a conjoint analysis. Wound Repair Regen. 2007;15(3):302–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Pardon K, et al. Preferences of advanced lung cancer patients for patient-centred information and decision-making: a prospective multicentre study in 13 hospitals in Belgium. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(3):421–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Pardon K, et al. Are patients’ preferences for information and participation in medical decision-making being met? Interview study with lung cancer patients. Palliative Med. 2011;25(1):62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Troche CJ, Paltiel AD, Makuch RW. Evaluation of therapeutic strategies: a new method for balancing risk and benefit. Value Health. 2000;3(1):12–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Smith R, et al. The capability approach: an alternative evaluation paradigm for health economics? In: Jones AM (ed). The Elgar companion to health economics. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2012:415.

  64. Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(4):329–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Johnson F, et al. Crohn’s disease patients’ risk-benefit preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(3):769–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Johnson F, et al. Multiple sclerosis patients’ benefit–risk preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. J Neurol. 2009;256(4):554–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. European Medicines Agency (2010). Benefit–risk methodology project. Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/special_topics/document_listing/document_listing_000314.jsp. Accessed 29 Oct 2013.

  68. Diaby V, Goeree R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: a step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(1):81–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Johnson FR, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Goel V, et al. Randomized trial of a patient decision aid for choice of surgical treatment for breast cancer. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(1):1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Ruland C. Decision support for patient preference-based care planning effects on nursing care and patient outcomes. J Am Med Informat Assoc. 1999;6(4):304–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Marieke G.M. Weernink, Sarah I.M. Janus, Janine A. van Til, Dennis W. Raisch, Jeannette G. van Manen and Maarten J. IJzerman have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review. No sources of funding were used in the preparation of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Marieke G. M. Weernink, Sarah I. M. Janus, Janine A. van Til, Jeannette G. van Manen & Maarten J. IJzerman

  2. College of Pharmacy, University of New Mexico, MSC 09 5360, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA

    Dennis W. Raisch

Authors
  1. Marieke G. M. Weernink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah I. M. Janus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janine A. van Til
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dennis W. Raisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeannette G. van Manen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maarten J. IJzerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marieke G. M. Weernink.

Additional information

Marieke G. M. Weernink and Sarah I. M. Janus contributed equally to this work.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weernink, M.G.M., Janus, S.I.M., van Til, J.A. et al. A Systematic Review to Identify the Use of Preference Elicitation Methods in Healthcare Decision Making. Pharm Med 28, 175–185 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-014-0059-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-014-0059-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation