Table 1.
Study characteristics including methodology, funding source, and quality, evaluated according to the PREFS checklist
| References | Year | Country | N | Method | Att | Options (n)* | Subgroups | Funding | Q | P | R | E | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anandadas et al22 | 2011 | UK | 768 | SPO | 9 | 4 | Management group | Industry | 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Berry et al36 | 2006 | USA | 260 | SPO | 7 | 4 | Men who consider age a factor in decisions | Govt | 2 | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Bosco et al34 | 2012 | USA | 448 | SPO | 4 | 4 | Decision aid intervention group | Govt | 4 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Chapple et al32 | 2002 | UK | 50 | Qualitative (structured interview) | Ul | 9 | Management group | Govt | 2 | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Davison et al33 | 2012 | Canada | 180 | SPO | 14 | 2 | Participation in treatment decisions | Foundation | 4 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| de Bekker-Grob et al21 | 2013 | the Netherlands | 110 | DCE | 5 | 3 | None | Academic | 4 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Gwede et al24 | 2005 | USA | 119 | Qualitative (structured interview) | 8 | 2 | Management group | Foundation | 5 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Hall et al25 | 2003 | USA | 262 | SPO | 11 | 3 | Management group | Govt, academic | 4 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Holmboe et al23 | 2000 | USA | 102 | Qualitative (structured interview) | 4 | 6 | Likes and dislikes of treatment | Govt, academic | 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Ihrig et al26 | 2011 | Germany | 31 | SPO | 7 | 2 | Management goup | Academic | 4 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Mazur et al18 | 1996 | USA | 140 | SPO | 6 | 2 | Management group | Govt | 5 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mazur et al19 | 1996 | USA | 140 | SPO; TTO | 6 | 2 | None | Govt | 4 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Ramsey et al42 | 2010 | USA | 448 | SPO | 11 | 5 | Management group | Govt | 1 | ✓ | ||||
| Sidana et al27 | 2012 | USA | 493 | SPO | 15 | 3 | Management group | Academic | 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Sommers et al12 | 2008 | USA | 167 | TTO | 4 | 6 | Management group | Govt, academic | 4 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Steginga et al43 | 2002 | Australia | 108 | Qualitative (structured interview) | Ul | 3 | None | Govt, academic | 2 | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| van Tol-Geerdink et al29 | 2013 | the Netherlands | 240 | SPO | 5 | 3 | Management group | Foundation | 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Xu et al44 | 2011 | USA | 21 | Qualitative (structured interview) | Ul | 5 | None | Foundation | 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Xu et al31 | 2012 | USA | 21 | Qualitative (structured interview) | Ul | 2 | None | Foundation | 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Zeliadt et al28 | 2010 | USA | 198 | SPO | 10 | 5 | Men considering only surgery versus multiple options | Govt | 4 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Zeliadt et al30 | 2008 | USA | 593 | SPO | 24 | 5 | Men considering only surgery versus multiple options | Govt | 4 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Note:
*
Number of treatment options included in the analysis.
Abbreviations: Att, number of attributes (characteristics of the treatment options); DCE, discrete choice experiment; E, explanation; F, findings; Govt, government; N, number of respondents; P, purpose; PREFS, Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance; Q, quality score (based on PREFS checklist); R, responders; S, significance; SPO, stated preference (other); TTO, time trade-off; Ul, unlimited.