Abstract
Treatment selection is now much more consumer driven than in the past. However, there is a need to develop investigative methodological approaches that are sensitive to differences in patient preferences if full account is to be taken of what the patient sees as the best option in terms of different possible treatments available for a particular condition. Previous attitude research has been criticised because it does not provide insight into reasons why people hold different preferences or beliefs. A methodology is described which allows people to describe their concerns and values associated with different treatment options in their own words. This is the repertory grid method of eliciting personal constructs used in conjunction with generalised Procrustes analysis (GPA). An example of the use of this methodology is provided, drawn from research directed towards understanding people's beliefs about genetic technologies. A possible application of the method to understanding treatment preferences related to type 2 diabetes is also discussed. It is concluded that the use of innovative methodologies is essential if our understanding of patient preferences regarding treatment options is to have a significant impact on patient quality of life.
Key Words: patient preference; repertory grid method; diabetes
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (117.9 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Dudley N. Importance of risk communication and decision making in cardiovascular conditions in older patients: a discussion paper. Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 (Suppl 1):i19–i22. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100019... [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Edwards A., Elwyn G. Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences. Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 (Suppl 1):i9–13. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100009... [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Frewer L. J., Howard C., Hedderley D., Shepherd R. What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Anal. 1996 Aug;16(4):473–486. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01094.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Frewer Lynn J., Howard Chaya, Shepherd Richard. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Sci Technol Human Values. 1997 Winter;22(1):98–124. doi: 10.1177/016224399702200105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gage B. F., Cardinalli A. B., Owens D. K. The effect of stroke and stroke prophylaxis with aspirin or warfarin on quality of life. Arch Intern Med. 1996 Sep 9;156(16):1829–1836. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lipkin E. New strategies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Am Diet Assoc. 1999 Mar;99(3):329–334. doi: 10.1016/s0002-8223(99)00083-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lloyd A. J. The extent of patients' understanding of the risk of treatments. Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 (Suppl 1):i14–i18. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100014... [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Montgomery A. A., Fahey T. How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians? Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 (Suppl 1):i39–i43. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100039... [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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 Sep;10 (Suppl 1):i34–i38. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100034... [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ryan M., Bate A., Eastmond C. J., Ludbrook A. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 (Suppl 1):i55–i60. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100055... [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ryan M., Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ. 1997 May-Jun;6(3):261–273. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199705)6:3<261::aid-hec262>3.0.co;2-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tillotson L. M., Smith M. S. Locus of control, social support, and adherence to the diabetes regimen. Diabetes Educ. 1996 Mar-Apr;22(2):133–139. doi: 10.1177/014572179602200206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Williamson A. R., Hunt A. E., Pope J. F., Tolman N. M. Recommendations of dietitians for overcoming barriers to dietary adherence in individuals with diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2000 Mar-Apr;26(2):272–279. doi: 10.1177/014572170002600207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zechendorf B. What the public thinks about biotechnology. Biotechnology (N Y) 1994 Sep;12(9):870-1, 873-5. doi: 10.1038/nbt0994-870. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]