Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Study protocol

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

Authors: Carmen D Dirksen, Cecile MA Utens, Manuela A Joore, Teus A van Barneveld, Bert Boer, Dunja HH Dreesens, Hans van Laarhoven, Cees Smit, Anne M Stiggelbout, Trudy van der Weijden

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

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.
Literature
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-CrossRef
2.
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. 10.1093/intqhc/mzl040.CrossRefPubMed
3.
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. 10.2165/11314840-000000000-00000.CrossRef
4.
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. 10.1002/hec.1697.CrossRefPubMed
5.
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. 2004, Sheffield: Sheffield Health Economics Group
6.
Bridges JF: Future challenges for the economic evaluation of healthcare: patient preferences, risk attitudes and beyond. Pharmaco Economics. 2005, 23: 317-21. 10.2165/00019053-200523040-00002.CrossRef
7.
Bridges JF, Jones C: Patient-based health technology assessment: a vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007, 23: 30-5.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Chong CA, Chen IJ, Naglie G, Krahn MD: How well do guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences?. J Gen Intern Med. 2009, 24: 977-82. 10.1007/s11606-009-0987-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
10.
Gandjour A: Theoretical foundation of patient v. population preferences in calculating QALYs. Med Decis Making. 2010, 30: E57-63. 10.1177/0272989X10370488.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Krahn M, Naglie G: The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA. 2008, 300: 436-8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
14.
Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2005, New York: Oxford University Press, 3
15.
Gold MRS JA, Russel LB, Weinstein MC: Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Edited by: Weinstein MC, Russel LB, Gold JA. 1996, Oxford University
16.
Entwistle V, Firnigl D, Ryan M, Francis J, Kinghorn P: Which experiences of health care delivery matter to service users and why? A critical interpretive synthesis and conceptual map. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2012, 17: 70-8. 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011029.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Brooker AS, Carcone S, Witteman W, Krahn M: Integrating quantitative preference-related evidence into HTA: the case of ventilation for COPD. 2011, Toronto: Preliminary report, 2011, THETA: Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative
18.
Murad MH, Montori VM, Guyatt GH: Incorporating patient preferences in evidence-based medicine. JAMA. 2008, 300: 2483-author reply 2483–4CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
21.
Azjen I: Attitudes, personality and behaviour. 1988, Milton Keynes: Open University Press
22.
Lichtenstein S, Slovic P: The construction of preference. 2006, New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRef
23.
Scherer K: What are emotions? And how can they be measured?. Soc Sci Inf. 2005, 44: 695-729. 10.1177/0539018405058216.CrossRef
24.
Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, Napper M, Robb CM: Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001, 5: 1-186.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Saltman R, Figueras J, Sakellarides C: Critical challenges for health care reform in Europe. 1998, Buckingham: Open University Press
26.
Wild C, Gibis B: Evaluations of health interventions in social insurance-based countries: Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria. Health Policy. 2003, 63: 187-96. 10.1016/S0168-8510(02)00065-9.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Special issue: Health care technology and its assessment in eight countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States. Health Policy. 1994, 30: 1-421. 10.1016/0168-8510(94)00683-6.
28.
Chinitz D: Health technology assessment in four countries: response from political science. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004, 20: 55-60.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Coulter A: Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patient’s perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004, 20: 92-6.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Stolk EA, Rutten FF: The “health benefit basket” in the Netherlands. Eur J Health Econ. 2005, 6 (1): 53-7. 10.1007/s10198-004-0253-2.CrossRefPubMedCentral
31.
van der Meijden CG C: Procedure beoordeling extramurale geneesmiddelen. 2011, Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport en College Voor Zorgverzekeraars,http://​www.​cvz.​nl,
32.
Zwaap J: Pakketbeheer in de praktijk 2. 2009, Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeraars
33.
Institute of Medicine: Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. 2011, Washington DC: The National Academies Press
34.
College voor zorgverzekeringen: Richtlijnen voor farmaco-economich onderzoek, geactualiseerde versie. 2006, Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeraars
35.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ: GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008, 336: 924-6. 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
AGREE TANSC: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II the AGREE II instrument. 2009
37.
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005, 15: 1277-88. 10.1177/1049732305276687.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Kahneman D, Wakker PP, Sarin R: Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Q J Econ. 1997, 112: 31-CrossRef
39.
Armitage CJ, Connor M: Social cognition models and health behaviour: a structured review. Psychol Health. 2000, 15: 12-CrossRef
40.
McFadden D: Rationality for economists. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1999, 19: 73-105. 10.1023/A:1007863007855.CrossRef
41.
Strasser S, Aharony L, Greenberger D: The patient satisfaction process: moving toward a comprehensive model. Med Care Rev. 1993, 50: 219-48. 10.1177/107755879305000205.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Linder-Pelz SU: Toward a theory of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 1982, 16: 577-82. 10.1016/0277-9536(82)90311-2.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Regieraad Kwaliteit van Zorg: Gaan richtlijnen en doelmatigheid samen? Welke kosten en kostenberekeningen horen thuis in een richtlijn. 2011, Den Haag
44.
Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, Johnson FR, Mauskopf J: Conjoint analysis applications in health–a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011, 14: 403-13. 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Lancsar E, Louviere J: Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmaco Economics. 2008, 26: 661-77. 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions: protocol of the patient-VIP study
Authors
Carmen D Dirksen
Cecile MA Utens
Manuela A Joore
Teus A van Barneveld
Bert Boer
Dunja HH Dreesens
Hans van Laarhoven
Cees Smit
Anne M Stiggelbout
Trudy van der Weijden
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-64

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Implementation Science 1/2013 Go to the issue

Research

An ethnographic exploration of influences on prescribing in general practice: why is there variation in prescribing practices?

Methodology

Designing a valid randomized pragmatic primary care implementation trial: the my own health report (MOHR) project

Methodology

Knowledge translation strategies to improve the use of evidence in public health decision making in local government: intervention design and implementation plan

Research

Understanding the Canadian adult CT head rule trial: use of the theoretical domains framework for process evaluation

Methodology

Tool for evaluating research implementation challenges: A sense-making protocol for addressing implementation challenges in complex research settings

Research

How hard can it be to include research evidence and evaluation in local health policy implementation? Results from a mixed methods study