Measuring patients' preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk

A greater understanding of patients’ preferences for mode of treatment is central to current models of shared patient-doctor decision making. It is also of potential importance in enhancing patient adherence to treatment and, in turn, patients’ health outcomes. Health services, with their emphases on patient involvement and satisfaction, audit and clinical governance, increasingly aim to be responsive to patients’ concerns and ultimately to enhance the quality of health care. Hence there is a need for awareness of patients’ preferences for treatment, and to develop appropriate, valid and reliable methods of eliciting these. The papers published in this supplement represent the output of an MRC Health Services Research Collaboration (HSRC) workshop, together with invited papers from other researchers in the area of patients’ preferences for treatment. The MRC HSRC has a special interest in the individualisation of health care and in methodological development; it is in the interface between patient preferences and evidence of benefit derived from groups that individualisation of care may be achieved. The aim of the workshop was to bring together an interdisciplinary group of UK experts to discuss the concept and measurement of patients’ preferences for treatment and directions for future research. The complexity and possible directions for research are summarised in fig 1. The supplement covers patients’ understandings of treatment risks, patients’ inclusion in decision making about treatment, diVerences in treatment preferences between doctors, and between doctors and patients, as well as methodological and ethical issues. It indicates the need for interdisciplinary collaboration on this topic. The literature on preferences spans a wide range of disciplines and journals including medicine, epidemiology, ethics, psychology, sociology, economics and policy areas from transport and environmental planning to agriculture. The knowledge base in this area of work is thus very diVuse which makes it diYcult for those with unidisciplinary approaches to become aware of all relevant research. It is intended that this collection of papers should stimulate further multidisciplinary dialogue, with involvement of representatives of patients, on the definition and measurement of patients’ preferences for treatment and their perception of its risks.

[1]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Perceived risk and tampering with nature , 2000 .

[2]  P. J. Scott,et al.  Uncertainty in clinical practice: implications for quality and costs of health care , 1996, The Lancet.

[3]  P. Ubel,et al.  How stable are people's preferences for giving priority to severely ill patients? , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[4]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Behavioral Decision Theory , 1977 .

[5]  NJM London,et al.  Patients' ability to recall risk associated with treatment options , 1999, The Lancet.

[6]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. , 1997, Health economics.

[7]  I. Chalmers It's official: Evaluative research must become part of routine care in the NHS , 2000, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[8]  M. Croughan-Minihane,et al.  Do patients' ethnic and social factors influence the use of do-not-resuscitate orders? , 1999, Ethnicity & disease.

[9]  J. Ratcliffe,et al.  Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. , 2000, Health economics.

[10]  E. Guadagnoli,et al.  Patient participation in decision-making. , 1998, Social science & medicine.

[11]  G. Smith,et al.  Lay epidemiology and the prevention paradox: the implications of coronary candidacy for health education , 1991 .

[12]  M. Horan,et al.  Opinions of Elderly People on Treatment for End-Stage Renal Disease , 1999, Gerontology.

[13]  G. Sayers,et al.  An analysis of CPR decision-making by elderly patients. , 1997, Journal of medical ethics.

[14]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Patient Preference-based Treatment Thresholds and Recommendations , 2000, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[15]  G. Bugeja,et al.  Exclusion of elderly people from clinical research: a descriptive study of published reports , 1997, BMJ.

[16]  S. Ebrahim Do not resuscitate decisions: flogging dead horses or a dignified death? , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  A. Ash,et al.  Measuring patients' desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. , 1989, Journal of general internal medicine.

[18]  Decisions Relating to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: a joint statement from the British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council (UK) and the Royal College of Nursing , 2001, Journal of medical ethics.

[19]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences , 1998, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[20]  D M Trandel-Korenchuk,et al.  Patient participation in decision making. , 1982, The Nurse practitioner.

[21]  R A Stephenson,et al.  Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. , 2000, JAMA.

[22]  R L Kane,et al.  Methodology for measuring health-state preferences--III: Population and context effects. , 1989, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[23]  J R Beck,et al.  The Danger of Applying Group-level Utilities in Decision Analyses of the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer in Individual Patients , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[24]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. , 1982, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  N. Weinstein Unrealistic optimism about future life events , 1980 .

[26]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  The Psychology of Good Judgment , 1996, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[27]  L. Goldman,et al.  Resuscitation preferences among patients with severe congestive heart failure: results from the SUPPORT project. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. , 1998, Circulation.

[28]  I. Kerridge,et al.  Decision making in CPR: attitudes of hospital patients and healthcare professionals , 1998, The Medical journal of Australia.

[29]  Jeremy C Wyatt,et al.  Design should help use of patients' data , 1998, The Lancet.

[30]  D. Gillatt,et al.  Medical or surgical orchidectomy: the patients' choice. , 1991, BMJ.

[31]  P. Dieppe To cure or not to cure, that is not the question , 2000, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[32]  M. Wensing,et al.  Evidence-based patient empowerment , 2000, Quality in health care : QHC.

[33]  Frank P. McKenna,et al.  It won't happen to me: Unrealistic optimism or illusion of control? , 1993 .

[34]  A. Bowling Ageism in cardiology , 1999, BMJ.

[35]  V. Entwistle,et al.  Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review , 1999, BMJ.

[36]  M. Ryan,et al.  Using Consumer Preferences in Health Care Decision Making: The Application of Conjoint Analysis , 1996 .

[37]  Alexander J. Rothman,et al.  Stage theories of health behavior: conceptual and methodological issues. , 1998, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[38]  T. Speroff,et al.  Variation in the use of do-not-resuscitate orders in patients with stroke. , 1997, Archives of internal medicine.

[39]  R Shepherd,et al.  Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food‐Related Hazards , 1998, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[40]  N. Wenger,et al.  Life‐Sustaining Treatment Decisions for Nursing Home Residents: Who Discusses, Who Decides and What Is Decided? , 1999, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[41]  T Fahey,et al.  The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis. , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[42]  B. Gage,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of preference-based antithrombotic therapy for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. , 1998, Stroke.

[43]  T. Speroff,et al.  Increased risk of death in patients with do-not-resuscitate orders. , 1999, Medical care.

[44]  S. Sutton How accurate are smokers’ perceptions of risk? , 1999 .

[45]  N D Weinstein,et al.  Why it won't happen to me: perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. , 1984, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[46]  R. Shepherd,et al.  The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production , 1998 .

[47]  Sally J Macintyre,et al.  Risk communication: The relationships between the media, public beliefs and policy-making , 1999 .

[48]  R. Thomson,et al.  Decision analysis and guidelines for anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation , 2000, The Lancet.

[49]  A. Likourezos,et al.  Older Americans hold on to life dearly , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[50]  K. McPherson,et al.  Cancer patients' information needs and information seeking behaviour: in depth interview study , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.