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
. 2023 Feb;43(2):214-226.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X221115058. Epub 2022 Jul 29.

Patient-Preference Diagnostics: Adapting Stated-Preference Methods to Inform Effective Shared Decision Making

Affiliations

Patient-Preference Diagnostics: Adapting Stated-Preference Methods to Inform Effective Shared Decision Making

Juan Marcos Gonzalez Sepulveda et al. Med Decis Making. 2023 Feb.

Abstract

Background: While clinical practice guidelines underscore the need to incorporate patient preferences in clinical decision making, incorporating meaningful assessment of patient preferences in clinical encounters is challenging. Structured approaches that combine quantitative patient preferences and clinical evidence could facilitate effective patient-provider communication and more patient-centric health care decisions. Adaptive conjoint or stated-preference approaches can identify individual preference parameters, but they can require a relatively large number of choice questions or simplifying assumptions about the error with which preferences are elicited.

Method: We propose an approach to efficiently diagnose preferences of patients for outcomes of treatment alternatives by leveraging prior information on patient preferences to generate adaptive choice questions to identify a patient's proximity to known preference phenotypes. This information can be used for measuring sensitivity and specificity, much like any other diagnostic procedure. We simulated responses with varying levels of choice errors for hypothetical patients with specific preference profiles to measure sensitivity and specificity of a 2-question preference diagnostic.

Results: We identified 4 classes representing distinct preference profiles for patients who participated in a previous first-time anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD) survey. Posterior probabilities of class membership at the end of a 2-question sequence ranged from 87% to 89%. We found that specificity and sensitivity of the 2-question sequences were robust to respondent errors. The questions appeared to have better specificity than sensitivity.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that this approach could help diagnose patient preferences for treatments for a condition such as FTASD with acceptable precision using as few as 2 choice questions. Such preference-diagnostic tools could be used to improve and document alignment of treatment choices and patient preferences.

Highlights: Approaches that combine patient preferences and clinical evidence can facilitate effective patient-provider communication and more patient-centric healthcare decisions. However, diagnosing individual-level preferences is challenging, and no formal diagnostic tools exist.We propose a structured approach to efficiently diagnose patient preferences based on prior information on the distribution of patient preferences in a population.We generated a 2-question test of preferences for the outcomes associated with the treatment of first-time anterior shoulder dislocation.The diagnosis of preferences can help physicians discuss relevant aspects of the treatment options and proactively address patient concerns during the clinical encounter.

Keywords: discrete-choice experiment; experimental design; preference diagnostic; shared decision making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

None to disclose

Conflict of Interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Steps in developing a preference diagnostic tool based on population-level preferences
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Example choice question
Figure 3
Figure 3
Attribute importance by patient phenotype
Figure 4
Figure 4
Percentage of true positives by phenotype and error variance
Figure 5
Figure 5
Percentage of true negatives by phenotype and error variance
Figure 6
Figure 6
Overall percentage of cases correctly classified by error variance

References

    1. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. Mar 1997;44(5):681–92. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Backman WD, Levine SA, Wenger NK, Harold JG. Shared decision-making for older adults with cardiovascular disease. Clin Cardiol. 2020;43(2):196–204. doi: 10.1002/clc.23267 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Qaseem A, Snow V, Owens DK, Shekelle P. The development of clinical practice guidelines and guidance statements of the American College of Physicians: summary of methods. Ann Intern Med. Aug 3 2010;153(3):194–9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-3-201008030-00010 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Eraker SA, Kirscht JP, Becker MH. Understanding and improving patient compliance. Ann Intern Med. Feb 1984;100(2):258–68. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-100-2-258 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Østbye T, Yarnall KSH, Krause KM, Pollak KI, Gradison M, Michener JL. Is there time for management of patients with chronic diseases in primary care? Ann Fam Med. May-Jun 2005;3(3):209–214. doi: 10.1370/afm.310 - DOI - PMC - PubMed