Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jun 10:8:64.
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-64.

Integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions: protocol of the patient-VIP study

Affiliations

Integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions: protocol of the patient-VIP study

Carmen D Dirksen et al. Implement Sci. .

Abstract

Background: Despite a strong movement towards active patient involvement in healthcare policy decisions, systematic and explicit consideration of evidence of this research on patient preferences seems limited. Furthermore, little is known about the opinions of several stakeholders towards consideration of research evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions. This paper describes the protocol for an explorative study on the integration of research on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions. The study questions: to what extent research evidence on patient preferences is considered in current procedures for healthcare policy decisions; opinions of stakeholders regarding the integration of this type of evidence in healthcare policy decisions; and what could be a decision framework for the integration of such research evidence in healthcare policy decisions.

Methods/design: The study is divided in three sub-studies, predominantly using qualitative methods. The first sub-study is a scoping review in five European countries to investigate whether and how results of research on patient preferences are considered in current procedures for coverage decisions and clinical practice guideline development. The second sub-study is a qualitative study to explore the opinions of stakeholders with regard to the possibilities for integrating evidence on patient preferences in the process of healthcare decision-making in the Netherlands. The third sub-study is the development of a decision framework for research on patient preferences. The framework will consist of: a process description regarding the place of evidence on patient preferences in the decision-making process; and a taxonomy describing different terminologies and conceptualisations of 'preferences' and an overview of existing methodologies for investigating preferences. The concept framework will be presented to and discussed with experts.

Discussion: This study will create awareness regarding the existence and potential value of research evidence on patient preferences for healthcare policy decision-making and provides insight in the methods for investigating patient preferences and the barriers and facilitators for integration of such research in healthcare policy decisions. Results of the study will be useful for researchers, clinical practice guideline developers, healthcare policy makers, and patient representatives.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Boivin AC K, Fervers B, Gracia J, James M, Marshall C, Sakala C, Sanger S, Strid J, Thomas V, van der Weijden T, Grol R, Burges J. G-I-N PUBLIC. Patient and public involvement in clinical guidelines: international experiences and future perspectives. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:e22. - PubMed
    1. Verkerk K, Van Veenendaal H, Severens JL, Hendriks EJ, Burgers JS. Considered judgement in evidence-based guideline development. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006;18:365–9. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl040. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brazier JE, Dixon S, Ratcliffe J. The role of patient preferences in cost-effectiveness analysis: a conflict of values? Pharmaco Economics. 2009;27:705–12. doi: 10.2165/11314840-000000000-00000. - DOI - PubMed
    1. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–72. doi: 10.1002/hec.1697. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tsuchyia A, Sculpher M, O’Hagan T, McCabe C, Claxton K, Dolan P, Brennan A, Brazier JA R. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states: whose well-being is it anyway? in Discussion paper series, ref 04/3. Sheffield: Sheffield Health Economics Group; 2004. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources