Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 3/2013

01-06-2013 | Review Article

Patient Preferences Versus Physicians’ Judgement: Does it Make a Difference in Healthcare Decision Making?

Authors: Axel C. Mühlbacher, Christin Juhnke

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 3/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Clinicians and public health experts make evidence-based decisions for individual patients, patient groups and even whole populations. In addition to the principles of internal and external validity (evidence), patient preferences must also influence decision making. Great Britain, Australia and Germany are currently discussing methods and procedures for valuing patient preferences in regulatory (authorization and pricing) and in health policy decision making. However, many questions remain on how to best balance patient and public preferences with physicians’ judgement in healthcare and health policy decision making. For example, how to define evaluation criteria regarding the perceived value from a patient’s perspective? How do physicians’ fact-based opinions also reflect patients’ preferences based on personal values? Can empirically grounded theories explain differences between patients and experts—and, if so, how? This article aims to identify and compare studies that used different preference elicitation methods and to highlight differences between patient and physician preferences. Therefore, studies comparing patient preferences and physician judgements were analysed in a review. This review shows a limited amount of literature analysing and comparing patient and physician preferences for healthcare interventions and outcomes. Moreover, it shows that methodology used to compare preferences is diverse. A total of 46 studies used the following methods—discrete-choice experiments, conjoint analyses, standard gamble, time trade-offs and paired comparisons—to compare patient preferences with doctor judgements. All studies were published between 1985 and 2011. Most studies reveal a disparity between the preferences of actual patients and those of physicians. For most conditions, physicians underestimated the impact of intervention characteristics on patients’ decision making. Differentiated perceptions may reflect ineffective communication between the provider and the patient. This in turn may keep physicians from fully appreciating the impact of certain medical conditions on patient preferences. Because differences exist between physicians’ judgement and patient preferences, it is important to incorporate the needs and wants of the patient into treatment decisions.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Liberman N, Trope Y, Wakslak C. Construal level theory and consumer behavior. J Consumer Psychol. 2007;17(2):113–7.CrossRef Liberman N, Trope Y, Wakslak C. Construal level theory and consumer behavior. J Consumer Psychol. 2007;17(2):113–7.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bar-Anan Y, Liberman N, Trope Y. The association between psychological distance and construal level: evidence from an implicit association test. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2006;135(4):609–22.PubMedCrossRef Bar-Anan Y, Liberman N, Trope Y. The association between psychological distance and construal level: evidence from an implicit association test. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2006;135(4):609–22.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Nan X. Social distance, framing, and judgment: a construal level perspective. Human Commun Res. 2007;33(4):489–514.CrossRef Nan X. Social distance, framing, and judgment: a construal level perspective. Human Commun Res. 2007;33(4):489–514.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ariely D. The upside of irrationality: the unexpected benefits of defying logic at work and at home. Harper, 2011. Ariely D. The upside of irrationality: the unexpected benefits of defying logic at work and at home. Harper, 2011.
7.
go back to reference Green PE, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Market. 1990;54(4):3–19.CrossRef Green PE, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Market. 1990;54(4):3–19.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5(2):141–54.PubMedCrossRef Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5(2):141–54.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Mühlbacher A, Juhnke C, Bethge S. Experts’ judgement on patient-centered coordinated care. Value Health. 2010;13(7):A337.CrossRef Mühlbacher A, Juhnke C, Bethge S. Experts’ judgement on patient-centered coordinated care. Value Health. 2010;13(7):A337.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Australian Research Council. Summary of Successful Linkage: Projects Proposals for Funding to Commence in 2010 by State and Organisation. Canberra: Australian Government; 2010. Australian Research Council. Summary of Successful Linkage: Projects Proposals for Funding to Commence in 2010 by State and Organisation. Canberra: Australian Government; 2010.
11.
go back to reference Stafinski T, Menon D, Philippon DJ, McCabe C. Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different. PharmacoEconomics. 2011;29(6):475–95.PubMedCrossRef Stafinski T, Menon D, Philippon DJ, McCabe C. Health technology funding decision-making processes around the world: the same, yet different. PharmacoEconomics. 2011;29(6):475–95.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Billings JA, Krakauer EL. On patient autonomy and physician responsibility in end-of-life care. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(9):849–53.PubMedCrossRef Billings JA, Krakauer EL. On patient autonomy and physician responsibility in end-of-life care. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(9):849–53.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Telser H, Becker K, Zweifel P. Validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates: evidence from two overlapping discrete-choice experiments. Patient. 2008;1(4):283–98.PubMedCrossRef Telser H, Becker K, Zweifel P. Validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates: evidence from two overlapping discrete-choice experiments. Patient. 2008;1(4):283–98.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ. 1997;16(2):155–75.PubMedCrossRef Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ. 1997;16(2):155–75.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Stein JD. Disparities between ophthalmologists and their patients in estimating quality of life. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15(3):238.PubMedCrossRef Stein JD. Disparities between ophthalmologists and their patients in estimating quality of life. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004;15(3):238.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Fiebig DG, Haas M, Hossain I, Street DJ, Viney R. Decisions about Pap tests: what influences women and providers? Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(10):1766–74.PubMedCrossRef Fiebig DG, Haas M, Hossain I, Street DJ, Viney R. Decisions about Pap tests: what influences women and providers? Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(10):1766–74.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference 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. 1997;44(5):681–92.PubMedCrossRef 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. 1997;44(5):681–92.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Robinson A, Thomson R. Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools. Qual Health Care. 2001;10(Suppl. 1):i34–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Robinson A, Thomson R. Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools. Qual Health Care. 2001;10(Suppl. 1):i34–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
21.
22.
go back to reference van Til JA. Integrating preferences into decision making: the treatment of ankle-foot impairment in stroke [dissertation]. Enschede: University of Twente; 2009. van Til JA. Integrating preferences into decision making: the treatment of ankle-foot impairment in stroke [dissertation]. Enschede: University of Twente; 2009.
23.
go back to reference Ford S, Schofield T, Hope T. What are the ingredients for a successful evidence-based patient choice consultation? A qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(3):589–602.PubMedCrossRef Ford S, Schofield T, Hope T. What are the ingredients for a successful evidence-based patient choice consultation? A qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(3):589–602.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Edwards A, Elwyn G, Wood F, Atwell C, Prior L, Houston H. Shared decision making and risk communication in practice: a qualitative study of GPs’ experiences. Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55(510):6–13.PubMedCentralPubMed Edwards A, Elwyn G, Wood F, Atwell C, Prior L, Houston H. Shared decision making and risk communication in practice: a qualitative study of GPs’ experiences. Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55(510):6–13.PubMedCentralPubMed
25.
go back to reference Edwards A, Elwyn G. Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision. Health Expect. 2006;9(4):307–20.PubMedCrossRef Edwards A, Elwyn G. Inside the black box of shared decision making: distinguishing between the process of involvement and who makes the decision. Health Expect. 2006;9(4):307–20.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Speedling EJ, Rose DN. Building an effective doctor–patient relationship: from patient satisfaction to patient participation. Soc Sci Med. 1985;21(2):115–20.PubMedCrossRef Speedling EJ, Rose DN. Building an effective doctor–patient relationship: from patient satisfaction to patient participation. Soc Sci Med. 1985;21(2):115–20.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Holmes-Rovner M, Valade D, Orlowski C, Draus C, Nabozny-Valerio B, Keiser S. Implementing shared decision-making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities. Health Expect. 2000;3(3):182–91.PubMedCrossRef Holmes-Rovner M, Valade D, Orlowski C, Draus C, Nabozny-Valerio B, Keiser S. Implementing shared decision-making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities. Health Expect. 2000;3(3):182–91.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRef Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Mühlbacher AC, Bethge S, Ekert S, Tockhorn A, Nübling M. Der Wert von Innovationen im Gesundheitswesen: Spielen die Patientenpräferenzen eine Rolle. RPG Recht und Politik im Gesundheitswesen. 2008;14(2):53–62. Mühlbacher AC, Bethge S, Ekert S, Tockhorn A, Nübling M. Der Wert von Innovationen im Gesundheitswesen: Spielen die Patientenpräferenzen eine Rolle. RPG Recht und Politik im Gesundheitswesen. 2008;14(2):53–62.
30.
31.
go back to reference Eddy DM. Evidence-based medicine: a unified approach. Health Aff. 2005;24(1):9–17.CrossRef Eddy DM. Evidence-based medicine: a unified approach. Health Aff. 2005;24(1):9–17.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Amaya-Amaya M, Gerard K, Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in a nutshell. In: Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M, editors. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008. pp. 13–46. Amaya-Amaya M, Gerard K, Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in a nutshell. In: Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M, editors. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008. pp. 13–46.
33.
go back to reference Bederman SS, Mahomed NN, Kreder HJ, McIsaac WJ, Coyte PC, Wright JG. In the eye of the beholder: preferences of patients, family physicians, and surgeons for lumbar spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(1):108–15. Bederman SS, Mahomed NN, Kreder HJ, McIsaac WJ, Coyte PC, Wright JG. In the eye of the beholder: preferences of patients, family physicians, and surgeons for lumbar spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(1):108–15.
34.
go back to reference Bishop AJ, Marteau TM, Armstrong D, Chitty LS, Longworth L, Buxton MJ, Berlin C. Women and health care professionals’ preferences for Down’s syndrome screening tests: a conjoint analysis study. BJOG. 2004;111(8):775–9.PubMedCrossRef Bishop AJ, Marteau TM, Armstrong D, Chitty LS, Longworth L, Buxton MJ, Berlin C. Women and health care professionals’ preferences for Down’s syndrome screening tests: a conjoint analysis study. BJOG. 2004;111(8):775–9.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Bunch WH, Chapman RG. Patient preferences in surgery for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(5):794–9.PubMed Bunch WH, Chapman RG. Patient preferences in surgery for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(5):794–9.PubMed
36.
go back to reference Gregorian RS Jr, Gasik A, Kwong WJ, Voeller S, Kavanagh S. Importance of side effects in opioid treatment: a trade-off analysis with patients and physicians. J Pain. 2010;11(11):1095–108.PubMedCrossRef Gregorian RS Jr, Gasik A, Kwong WJ, Voeller S, Kavanagh S. Importance of side effects in opioid treatment: a trade-off analysis with patients and physicians. J Pain. 2010;11(11):1095–108.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Lee A, Gin T, Lau AS, Ng FF. A comparison of patients’ and health care professionals’ preferences for symptoms during immediate postoperative recovery and the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg. 2005;100(1):87–93.PubMedCrossRef Lee A, Gin T, Lau AS, Ng FF. A comparison of patients’ and health care professionals’ preferences for symptoms during immediate postoperative recovery and the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg. 2005;100(1):87–93.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Lewis SM, Cullinane FM, Carlin JB, Halliday JL. Women’s and health professionals’ preferences for prenatal testing for Down syndrome in Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;46(3):205–11.PubMedCrossRef Lewis SM, Cullinane FM, Carlin JB, Halliday JL. Women’s and health professionals’ preferences for prenatal testing for Down syndrome in Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;46(3):205–11.PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Meister H, Lausberg I, Kiessling J, Walger M, von Wedel H. Determining the importance of fundamental hearing aid attributes. Otol Neurotol. 2002;23(4):457–62.PubMedCrossRef Meister H, Lausberg I, Kiessling J, Walger M, von Wedel H. Determining the importance of fundamental hearing aid attributes. Otol Neurotol. 2002;23(4):457–62.PubMedCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Pieterse AH, Stiggelbout AM, Baas-Thijssen MC, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA. Benefit from preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment: disease-free patients’ and oncologists’ preferences. Br J Cancer. 2007;97(6):717–24.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Pieterse AH, Stiggelbout AM, Baas-Thijssen MC, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA. Benefit from preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment: disease-free patients’ and oncologists’ preferences. Br J Cancer. 2007;97(6):717–24.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Porzsolt F, Clouth J, Deutschmann M, Hippler HJ. Preferences of diabetes patients and physicians: a feasibility study to identify the key indicators for appraisal of health care values. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:125.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Porzsolt F, Clouth J, Deutschmann M, Hippler HJ. Preferences of diabetes patients and physicians: a feasibility study to identify the key indicators for appraisal of health care values. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:125.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Sampietro-Colom L, Espallargues M, Comas M, Rodriguez E, Castells X, Pinto JL. Prioritizing patients on waiting list for cataract surgery: preference differences among citizens. Gac Sanit. 2006;20(5):342–51.PubMedCrossRef Sampietro-Colom L, Espallargues M, Comas M, Rodriguez E, Castells X, Pinto JL. Prioritizing patients on waiting list for cataract surgery: preference differences among citizens. Gac Sanit. 2006;20(5):342–51.PubMedCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Sampietro-Colom L, Espallargues M, Rodriguez E, Comas M, Alonso J, Castells X, Pinto JL. Wide social participation in prioritizing patients on waiting lists for joint replacement: a conjoint analysis. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(4):554–66.PubMedCrossRef Sampietro-Colom L, Espallargues M, Rodriguez E, Comas M, Alonso J, Castells X, Pinto JL. Wide social participation in prioritizing patients on waiting lists for joint replacement: a conjoint analysis. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(4):554–66.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Sassi F, McDaid D, Ricciardi W. Conjoint analysis of preferences for cardiac risk assessment in primary care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):211–8.PubMed Sassi F, McDaid D, Ricciardi W. Conjoint analysis of preferences for cardiac risk assessment in primary care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):211–8.PubMed
45.
go back to reference Vermeulen H, Ubbink DT, de Zwart F, Goossens A, de Vos R. Preferences of patients, doctors, and nurses regarding wound dressing characteristics: a conjoint analysis. Wound Repair Regen. 2007;15(3):302–7.PubMedCrossRef Vermeulen H, Ubbink DT, de Zwart F, Goossens A, de Vos R. Preferences of patients, doctors, and nurses regarding wound dressing characteristics: a conjoint analysis. Wound Repair Regen. 2007;15(3):302–7.PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Mühlbacher AC, Nübling M. Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):193–203.PubMedCrossRef Mühlbacher AC, Nübling M. Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):193–203.PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference de Bekker Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72. de Bekker Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.
48.
go back to reference Mühlbacher AC, Rudolph I, Lincke HJ, Nübling M. Preferences for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:149.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Mühlbacher AC, Rudolph I, Lincke HJ, Nübling M. Preferences for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:149.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
49.
go back to reference Dolan P, Olsen JA, Menzel P, Richardson J. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ. 2003;12(7):545–51.PubMedCrossRef Dolan P, Olsen JA, Menzel P, Richardson J. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ. 2003;12(7):545–51.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Marshall D, Bridges JFP, Hauber B, Cameron R, Donnalley L, Fyie K, Johnson FR. Conjoint analysis applications in health how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3(4):249–56.PubMedCrossRef Marshall D, Bridges JFP, Hauber B, Cameron R, Donnalley L, Fyie K, Johnson FR. Conjoint analysis applications in health how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient. 2010;3(4):249–56.PubMedCrossRef
51.
52.
go back to reference McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka. 1974;1:105–42. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka. 1974;1:105–42.
53.
go back to reference Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;34:273–86.CrossRef Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;34:273–86.CrossRef
54.
go back to reference Manski CF. The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis. 1977;8(3):229–54.CrossRef Manski CF. The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis. 1977;8(3):229–54.CrossRef
55.
go back to reference Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74(2):132–57.CrossRef Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966;74(2):132–57.CrossRef
56.
go back to reference Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.CrossRef Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.CrossRef
57.
go back to reference Ashcroft DM, Seston E, Griffiths CE. Trade-offs between the benefits and risks of drug treatment for psoriasis: a discrete choice experiment with U.K. dermatologists. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(6):1236–41.PubMedCrossRef Ashcroft DM, Seston E, Griffiths CE. Trade-offs between the benefits and risks of drug treatment for psoriasis: a discrete choice experiment with U.K. dermatologists. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(6):1236–41.PubMedCrossRef
58.
go back to reference de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Preferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(3):211–9.PubMedCrossRef de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Preferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(3):211–9.PubMedCrossRef
59.
go back to reference Johnson FR, Hauber B, Ozdemir S, Siegel CA, Hass S, Sands BE. 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 Johnson FR, Hauber B, Ozdemir S, Siegel CA, Hass S, Sands BE. 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
60.
go back to reference Langer CJ, Fastenau JM, Forlenza JB, Tak Piech C, Bolge SC, Gano Allen J, Zilberberg MD. Effectiveness versus convenience: patient preferences for an erythropoietic agent to treat cancer-related anemia. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(1):85–92. Langer CJ, Fastenau JM, Forlenza JB, Tak Piech C, Bolge SC, Gano Allen J, Zilberberg MD. Effectiveness versus convenience: patient preferences for an erythropoietic agent to treat cancer-related anemia. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(1):85–92.
61.
go back to reference Mantovani LG, Monzini MS, Mannucci PM, Scalone L, Villa M, Gringeri A. Differences between patients’, physicians’ and pharmacists’ preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: a discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia. 2005;11(6):589–97.PubMedCrossRef Mantovani LG, Monzini MS, Mannucci PM, Scalone L, Villa M, Gringeri A. Differences between patients’, physicians’ and pharmacists’ preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: a discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia. 2005;11(6):589–97.PubMedCrossRef
62.
go back to reference Seston EM, Ashcroft DM, Griffiths CE. Balancing the benefits and risks of drug treatment: a stated-preference, discrete choice experiment with patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(9):1175–9.PubMedCrossRef Seston EM, Ashcroft DM, Griffiths CE. Balancing the benefits and risks of drug treatment: a stated-preference, discrete choice experiment with patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(9):1175–9.PubMedCrossRef
63.
go back to reference Shafey M, Lupichuk SM, Do T, Owen C, Stewart DA. Preferences of patients and physicians concerning treatment options for relapsed follicular lymphoma: a discrete choice experiment. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2011;46(7):962–9.CrossRef Shafey M, Lupichuk SM, Do T, Owen C, Stewart DA. Preferences of patients and physicians concerning treatment options for relapsed follicular lymphoma: a discrete choice experiment. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2011;46(7):962–9.CrossRef
64.
go back to reference Thrumurthy SG, Morris JJ, Mughal MM, Ward JB. Discrete-choice preference comparison between patients and doctors for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2011;98(8):1124–31.PubMedCrossRef Thrumurthy SG, Morris JJ, Mughal MM, Ward JB. Discrete-choice preference comparison between patients and doctors for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer. Br J Surg. 2011;98(8):1124–31.PubMedCrossRef
65.
go back to reference Thurstone LL. The method of paired comparisons for social values. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1927;21(4):384.CrossRef Thurstone LL. The method of paired comparisons for social values. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1927;21(4):384.CrossRef
66.
go back to reference David HA. The method of paired comparisons. In: Proceedings of The Fifth Conference on the Design Of Experiments In Army Research Developments and Testing, Durham, 1960. David HA. The method of paired comparisons. In: Proceedings of The Fifth Conference on the Design Of Experiments In Army Research Developments and Testing, Durham, 1960.
67.
go back to reference Pfisterer MH, Johnson TM 2nd, Jenetzky E, Hauer K, Oster P. Geriatric patients’ preferences for treatment of urinary incontinence: a study of hospitalized, cognitively competent adults aged 80 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(12):2016–22.PubMedCrossRef Pfisterer MH, Johnson TM 2nd, Jenetzky E, Hauer K, Oster P. Geriatric patients’ preferences for treatment of urinary incontinence: a study of hospitalized, cognitively competent adults aged 80 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(12):2016–22.PubMedCrossRef
68.
go back to reference Revicki DA, Shakespeare A, Kind P. Preferences for schizophrenia-related health states: a comparison of patients, caregivers and psychiatrists. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1996;11(2):101–8.PubMed Revicki DA, Shakespeare A, Kind P. Preferences for schizophrenia-related health states: a comparison of patients, caregivers and psychiatrists. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1996;11(2):101–8.PubMed
69.
go back to reference van der Donk J, Levendag PC, Kuijpers AJ, Roest FH, Habbema JD, Meeuwis CA, Schmitz PI. Patient participation in clinical decision-making for treatment of T3 laryngeal cancer: a comparison of state and process utilities. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(9):2369–78.PubMed van der Donk J, Levendag PC, Kuijpers AJ, Roest FH, Habbema JD, Meeuwis CA, Schmitz PI. Patient participation in clinical decision-making for treatment of T3 laryngeal cancer: a comparison of state and process utilities. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(9):2369–78.PubMed
70.
go back to reference Casparie AF, van der Waal MA. Differences in preferences between diabetic patients and diabetologists regarding quality of care: a matter of continuity and efficiency of care? Diabet Med. 1995;12(9):828–32.PubMedCrossRef Casparie AF, van der Waal MA. Differences in preferences between diabetic patients and diabetologists regarding quality of care: a matter of continuity and efficiency of care? Diabet Med. 1995;12(9):828–32.PubMedCrossRef
71.
go back to reference Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(6):593–600.PubMedCrossRef Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(6):593–600.PubMedCrossRef
72.
go back to reference Jalukar V, Funk GF, Christensen AJ, Karnell LH, Moran PJ. Health states following head and neck cancer treatment: patient, health-care professional, and public perspectives. Head Neck. 1998;20(7):600–8.PubMedCrossRef Jalukar V, Funk GF, Christensen AJ, Karnell LH, Moran PJ. Health states following head and neck cancer treatment: patient, health-care professional, and public perspectives. Head Neck. 1998;20(7):600–8.PubMedCrossRef
73.
go back to reference Mandelblatt JS, Sheppard VB, Hurria A, Kimmick G, Isaacs C, Taylor KL, et al. Breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in older women: the role of patient preference and interactions with physicians. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(19):3146–53.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Mandelblatt JS, Sheppard VB, Hurria A, Kimmick G, Isaacs C, Taylor KL, et al. Breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in older women: the role of patient preference and interactions with physicians. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(19):3146–53.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
74.
go back to reference McAlister FA, O’Connor AM, Wells G, Grover SA, Laupacis A. When should hypertension be treated? The different perspectives of Canadian family physicians and patients. CMAJ. 2000;163(4):403–8.PubMedCentralPubMed McAlister FA, O’Connor AM, Wells G, Grover SA, Laupacis A. When should hypertension be treated? The different perspectives of Canadian family physicians and patients. CMAJ. 2000;163(4):403–8.PubMedCentralPubMed
75.
go back to reference Otto RA, Dobie RA, Lawrence V, Sakai C. Impact of a laryngectomy on quality of life: perspective of the patient versus that of the health care provider. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1997;106:693–99. Otto RA, Dobie RA, Lawrence V, Sakai C. Impact of a laryngectomy on quality of life: perspective of the patient versus that of the health care provider. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1997;106:693–99.
76.
go back to reference Solomon MJ, Pager CK, Keshava A, Findlay M, Butow P, Salkeld GP, Roberts R. What do patients want? Patient preferences and surrogate decision making in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46(10):1351–7.PubMedCrossRef Solomon MJ, Pager CK, Keshava A, Findlay M, Butow P, Salkeld GP, Roberts R. What do patients want? Patient preferences and surrogate decision making in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46(10):1351–7.PubMedCrossRef
77.
go back to reference Stineman MG, Maislin G, Nosek M, Fiedler R, Granger CV. Comparing consumer and clinician values for alternative functional states: application of a new feature trade-off consensus building tool. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(12):1522–9.PubMedCrossRef Stineman MG, Maislin G, Nosek M, Fiedler R, Granger CV. Comparing consumer and clinician values for alternative functional states: application of a new feature trade-off consensus building tool. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(12):1522–9.PubMedCrossRef
78.
go back to reference Suarez-Almazor ME, Conner-Spady B. Rating of arthritis health states by patients, physicians, and the general public. Implications for cost-utility analyses. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(3):648–56.PubMed Suarez-Almazor ME, Conner-Spady B. Rating of arthritis health states by patients, physicians, and the general public. Implications for cost-utility analyses. J Rheumatol. 2001;28(3):648–56.PubMed
79.
go back to reference Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1944. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1944.
80.
go back to reference Bryce RL, Bradley MT, McCormick SM. To what extent would women prefer chorionic villus sampling to amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1989;3(2):137–45.PubMedCrossRef Bryce RL, Bradley MT, McCormick SM. To what extent would women prefer chorionic villus sampling to amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1989;3(2):137–45.PubMedCrossRef
81.
go back to reference Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Saddawi-Konefka D, Haase SC. A decision analysis of amputation versus reconstruction for severe open tibial fracture from the physician and patient perspectives. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66(2):185–91.PubMedCrossRef Chung KC, Shauver MJ, Saddawi-Konefka D, Haase SC. A decision analysis of amputation versus reconstruction for severe open tibial fracture from the physician and patient perspectives. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66(2):185–91.PubMedCrossRef
82.
go back to reference Leu RE, Gerfin M, Spycher S. The validity of the MIMIC (Multiple Indicators/MultIple Causes) health index: some empirical evidence. Dev Health Econ Public Policy. 1992;1:109–42.PubMedCrossRef Leu RE, Gerfin M, Spycher S. The validity of the MIMIC (Multiple Indicators/MultIple Causes) health index: some empirical evidence. Dev Health Econ Public Policy. 1992;1:109–42.PubMedCrossRef
83.
go back to reference Schackman BR, Teixeira PA, Weitzman G, Mushlin AI, Jacobson IM. Quality-of-life tradeoffs for hepatitis C treatment: do patients and providers agree? Med Decis Making. 2008;28(2):233–42.PubMedCrossRef Schackman BR, Teixeira PA, Weitzman G, Mushlin AI, Jacobson IM. Quality-of-life tradeoffs for hepatitis C treatment: do patients and providers agree? Med Decis Making. 2008;28(2):233–42.PubMedCrossRef
84.
go back to reference Suarez-Almazor ME, Conner-Spady B, Kendall CJ, Russell AS, Skeith K. Lack of congruence in the ratings of patients’ health status by patients and their physicians. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(2):113–21.PubMedCrossRef Suarez-Almazor ME, Conner-Spady B, Kendall CJ, Russell AS, Skeith K. Lack of congruence in the ratings of patients’ health status by patients and their physicians. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(2):113–21.PubMedCrossRef
85.
go back to reference Vandenbussche FP, De Jong-Potjer LC, Stiggelbout AM, Le Cessie S, Keirse MJ. Differences in the valuation of birth outcomes among pregnant women, mothers, and obstetricians. Birth. 1999;26(3):178–83.PubMedCrossRef Vandenbussche FP, De Jong-Potjer LC, Stiggelbout AM, Le Cessie S, Keirse MJ. Differences in the valuation of birth outcomes among pregnant women, mothers, and obstetricians. Birth. 1999;26(3):178–83.PubMedCrossRef
86.
go back to reference Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21–43.PubMed Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21–43.PubMed
87.
go back to reference Janz NK, Wren PA, Copeland LA, Lowery JC, Goldfarb SL, Wilkins EG. Patient–physician concordance: preferences, perceptions, and factors influencing the breast cancer surgical decision. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(15):3091–8.PubMedCrossRef Janz NK, Wren PA, Copeland LA, Lowery JC, Goldfarb SL, Wilkins EG. Patient–physician concordance: preferences, perceptions, and factors influencing the breast cancer surgical decision. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(15):3091–8.PubMedCrossRef
88.
go back to reference Pieterse AH, Baas-Thijssen MC, Marijnen CA, Stiggelbout AM. Clinician and cancer patient views on patient participation in treatment decision-making: a quantitative and qualitative exploration. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(6):875–82.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Pieterse AH, Baas-Thijssen MC, Marijnen CA, Stiggelbout AM. Clinician and cancer patient views on patient participation in treatment decision-making: a quantitative and qualitative exploration. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(6):875–82.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
89.
go back to reference Byrne CM, Solomon MJ, Young JM, Selby W, Harrison JD. Patient preferences between surgical and medical treatment in Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(5):586–97.PubMedCrossRef Byrne CM, Solomon MJ, Young JM, Selby W, Harrison JD. Patient preferences between surgical and medical treatment in Crohn’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(5):586–97.PubMedCrossRef
90.
go back to reference Harrison JD, Solomon MJ, Young JM, Meagher A, Butow P, Salkeld G, Hruby G, Clarke S. Patient and physician preferences for surgical and adjuvant treatment options for rectal cancer. Arch Surg. 2008;143(4):389.PubMedCrossRef Harrison JD, Solomon MJ, Young JM, Meagher A, Butow P, Salkeld G, Hruby G, Clarke S. Patient and physician preferences for surgical and adjuvant treatment options for rectal cancer. Arch Surg. 2008;143(4):389.PubMedCrossRef
91.
92.
go back to reference Gandjour A. Theoretical foundation of patient v. population preferences in calculating QALYs. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(4):E57–63. Gandjour A. Theoretical foundation of patient v. population preferences in calculating QALYs. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30(4):E57–63.
93.
go back to reference World Health Organization. Declaration of Alma-Ata: International Conference on Primary Health Care. Alma-Ata: USSR; 1978. World Health Organization. Declaration of Alma-Ata: International Conference on Primary Health Care. Alma-Ata: USSR; 1978.
94.
go back to reference Caddy J, Vergez C. Citizens as partners: information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); 2001. Caddy J, Vergez C. Citizens as partners: information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); 2001.
95.
go back to reference Brown DS, Finkelstein EA, Brown DR, Buchner DM, Johnson FR. Estimating older adults’ preferences for walking programs via conjoint analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(3):201–7, e4. Brown DS, Finkelstein EA, Brown DR, Buchner DM, Johnson FR. Estimating older adults’ preferences for walking programs via conjoint analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(3):201–7, e4.
96.
go back to reference Finkelstein EA, Brown DS, Brown DR, Buchner DM. A randomized study of financial incentives to increase physical activity among sedentary older adults. Prev Med. 2008;47(2):182–7.PubMedCrossRef Finkelstein EA, Brown DS, Brown DR, Buchner DM. A randomized study of financial incentives to increase physical activity among sedentary older adults. Prev Med. 2008;47(2):182–7.PubMedCrossRef
97.
go back to reference Bederman SS, McIsaac WJ, Coyte PC, Kreder HJ, Mahomed NN, Wright JG. Referral practices for spinal surgery are poorly predicted by clinical guidelines and opinions of primary care physicians. Med Care. 2010;48(9):852–8.PubMedCrossRef Bederman SS, McIsaac WJ, Coyte PC, Kreder HJ, Mahomed NN, Wright JG. Referral practices for spinal surgery are poorly predicted by clinical guidelines and opinions of primary care physicians. Med Care. 2010;48(9):852–8.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patient Preferences Versus Physicians’ Judgement: Does it Make a Difference in Healthcare Decision Making?
Authors
Axel C. Mühlbacher
Christin Juhnke
Publication date
01-06-2013
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0023-3

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 3/2013 Go to the issue