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

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Methods to perform systematic reviews of patient preferences: a literature survey

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Systematic reviews are a commonly used research design in the medical field to synthesize study findings. At present—although several systematic reviews of patient preference studies are published—there is no clear guidance available for researchers to conduct this type of systematic review. The aim of our study was to learn the most current practice of conducting these systematic reviews by conducting a survey of the literature regarding reviews of quantitative patient preference studies.

Methods

Our survey included systematic reviews of studies that used a stated quantitative preference design to elicit patient preferences. We identified eligible reviews through a search of the PubMed database. Two investigators with knowledge of the design of patient preference studies independently screened the titles and abstracts, and where needed, screened the full-text of the reviews to determine eligibility. We developed and pilot-tested a form to extract data on the methods used in each systematic review.

Results

Our search and screening identified 29 eligible reviews. A large proportion of the reviews (19/29, 66%) were published in 2014 or after; among them, nine reviews were published in 2016. The median number of databases searched for preference studies was four (interquartile range = 2 to 7). We found that less than half of the reviews (13/29, 45%) clearly reported assessing risk of bias or the methodological quality of the included preference studies; not a single review was able to perform quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) of the data on patient preferences.

Conclusion

These results suggest that several methodological issues of performing systematic reviews of patient preferences are not yet fully addressed by research and that the methodology may require future development.
Literature
1.
Ho M, et al. A framework for incorporating patient preferences regarding benefits and risks into regulatory assessment of medical technologies. Value Health. 2016;19(6):746–50.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
4.
Danner M, et al. Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: analytic hierarchy process (HAP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):369–75.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes: Oxford university press; 2015.
6.
Brett Hauber A, Fairchild AO, Reed 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.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
Yepes-Nuñez JJ, et al. Forty-two systematic reviews generated 23 items for assessing the risk of bias in values and preferences' studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;85:21–31.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Van Brunt K, et al. Preferences related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and its treatment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:33–43.PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Belinchon I, et al. Adherence, satisfaction and preferences for treatment in patients with psoriasis in the European Union: a systematic review of the literature. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:2357–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Bereza BG, et al. Patient preferences in severe COPD and asthma: a comprehensive literature review. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:739–44.PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Blanchard P, et al. Assessing head and neck cancer patient preferences and expectations: a systematic review. Oral Oncol. 2016;62:44–53.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Blinman P, et al. Patients' preferences for chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Lung Cancer. 2010;69(2):141–7.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Bradley NM, et al. Review of patterns of practice and patients' preferences in the treatment of bone metastases with palliative radiotherapy. Support Care Cancer. 2007;15(4):373–85.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Brooker AS, et al. Quantitative patient preference evidence for health technology assessment: a case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(3):290–300.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Currie A, et al. A systematic review of patient preference elicitation methods in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Color Dis. 2015;17(1):17–25.CrossRef
18.
Damm K, Vogel A, Prenzler A. Preferences of colorectal cancer patients for treatment and decision-making: a systematic literature review. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2014;23(6):762–72.CrossRef
19.
Eek D, et al. Patient-reported preferences for oral versus intravenous administration for the treatment of cancer: a review of the literature. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1609–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Eiring O, et al. What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e007848.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Emberton M. Medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: physician and patient preferences and satisfaction. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64(10):1425–35.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Gutknecht M, et al. A systematic review on methods used to evaluate patient preferences in psoriasis treatments. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30(9):1454–64.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Hamelinck VC, et al. Patients' preferences for surgical and adjuvant systemic treatment in early breast cancer: a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2014;40(8):1005–18.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Joy SM, et al. Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(10):877–92.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Lytvyn L, et al. Patient values and preferences on transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e014327.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
MacLean S, et al. Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e1S–23S.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
28.
Phillips KA, et al. A review of studies examining stated preferences for cancer screening. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006;3(3):A75.PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
30.
Sadique MZ, Legood R. Women's preferences regarding options for management of atypical, borderline or low-grade cervical cytological abnormalities: a review of the evidence. Cytopathology. 2012;23(3):161–6.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Schatz NK, et al. Systematic review of Patients' and Parents' preferences for ADHD treatment options and processes of care. Patient. 2015;8(6):483–97.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Schmidt K, et al. Preferences of lung cancer patients for treatment and decision-making: a systematic literature review. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016;25(4):580–91.CrossRef
33.
Showalter TN, Mishra MV, Bridges JF. Factors that influence patient preferences for prostate cancer management options: a systematic review. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:899–911.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
35.
Umar N, et al. Elicitation and use of patients' preferences in the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review. Acta Derm Venereol. 2012;92(4):341–6.CrossRefPubMed
36.
von Arx LB, Kjeer T. The patient perspective of diabetes care: a systematic review of stated preference research. Patient. 2014;7(3):283–300.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Wilke T, et al. Patient preferences for oral anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation: a systematic literature review. Patient. 2017;10(1):17–37.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Wortley S, et al. Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2014;7(3):271–82.CrossRefPubMed
39.
40.
Veldwijk J, et al. Preferences for vaccination: does health literacy make a difference? Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(8):948–58.CrossRef
41.
42.
Selva A SI, Zhang Y, Sanabria AJ, Pequeño S, Rigau D, Martínez L, et al. Development of a search strategy for studies about patients' values and preferences. In: Evidence-Informed Public Health: Opportunities and Challenges. Abstracts of the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium; 2014 21–26 Sep; Hyderabad, India John Wiley & Sons; 2014.
43.
Metadata
Title
Methods to perform systematic reviews of patient preferences: a literature survey
Publication date
01-12-2017
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0448-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Inverse probability of treatment-weighted competing risks analysis: an application on long-term risk of urinary adverse events after prostate cancer treatments

Research article

Testing a systematic approach to identify and prioritise barriers to successful implementation of a complex healthcare intervention

Correspondence

Conducting a team-based multi-sited focused ethnography in primary care

Research article

Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment

Research article

Self-controlled designs in pharmacoepidemiology involving electronic healthcare databases: a systematic review

Research article

Estimating cardiovascular disease incidence from prevalence: a spreadsheet based model