Patient Preferences in Diagnostic Imaging: A Scoping Review

Overview

Journal Patient

Specialty Health Services

Date 2023 Sep 4

PMID 37667148

Authors

Trey A Baird

Davene R Wright

Maria T Britto

Ellen A Lipstein

Andrew T Trout

Shireen E Hayatghaibi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: As new diagnostic imaging technologies are adopted, decisions surrounding diagnostic imaging become increasingly complex. As such, understanding patient preferences in imaging decision making is imperative.

Objectives: We aimed to review quantitative patient preference studies in imaging-related decision making, including characteristics of the literature and the quality of the evidence.

Methods: The Pubmed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify studies involving diagnostic imaging and quantitative patient preference measures from January 2000 to June 2022. Study characteristics that were extracted included the preference elicitation method, disease focus, and sample size. We employed the PREFS (Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance) checklist as our quality assessment tool.

Results: A total of 54 articles were included. The following methods were used to elicit preferences: conjoint analysis/discrete choice experiment methods (n = 27), contingent valuation (n = 16), time trade-off (n = 4), best-worst scaling (n = 3), multicriteria decision analysis (n = 3), and a standard gamble approach (n = 1). Half of the studies were published after 2016 (52%, 28/54). The most common scenario (n = 39) for eliciting patient preferences was cancer screening. Computed tomography, the most frequently studied imaging modality, was included in 20 studies, and sample sizes ranged from 30 to 3469 participants (mean 552). The mean PREFS score was 3.5 (standard deviation 0.8) for the included studies.

Conclusions: This review highlights that a variety of quantitative preference methods are being used, as diagnostic imaging technologies continue to evolve. While the number of preference studies in diagnostic imaging has increased with time, most examine preventative care/screening, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding imaging for disease characterization and management.

References

Kon A . The shared decision-making continuum. JAMA. 2010; 304(8):903-4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1208. View

Brenner A, Malo T, Margolis M, Lafata J, James S, Vu M . Evaluating Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2018; 178(10):1311-1316. PMC: 6233759. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3054. View

Jonas D, Reuland D, Reddy S, Nagle M, Clark S, Weber R . Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021; 325(10):971-987. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.0377. View

Winawer S, Fletcher R, Miller L, Godlee F, Stolar M, Mulrow C . Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology. 1997; 112(2):594-642. DOI: 10.1053/gast.1997.v112.agast970594. View

Rincon-Gonzalez L, Selig W, Hauber B, Reed S, Tarver M, Chaudhuri S . Leveraging Patient Preference Information in Medical Device Clinical Trial Design. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2022; 57(1):152-159. PMC: 9755102. DOI: 10.1007/s43441-022-00450-9. View

van Til J, IJzerman M . Why should regulators consider using patient preferences in benefit-risk assessment?. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013; 32(1):1-4. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0118-6. View

Fix G, VanDeusen Lukas C, Bolton R, Hill J, Mueller N, LaVela S . Patient-centred care is a way of doing things: How healthcare employees conceptualize patient-centred care. Health Expect. 2017; 21(1):300-307. PMC: 5750758. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12615. View

Morris P, Perkins A . Diagnostic imaging. Lancet. 2012; 379(9825):1525-33. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60429-2. View

Singh J, Cuttler L, Shin M, Silvers J, Neuhauser D . Medical decision-making and the patient: understanding preference patterns for growth hormone therapy using conjoint analysis. Med Care. 1998; 36(8 Suppl):AS31-45. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199808001-00005. View

10.

Phillips K, Reed Johnson F, Maddala T . Measuring what people value: a comparison of "attitude" and "preference" surveys. Health Serv Res. 2003; 37(6):1659-79. PMC: 1464045. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.01116. View

11.

Lancsar E, Louviere J . Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26(8):661-77. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004. View

12.

Marsh K, IJzerman M, Thokala P, Baltussen R, Boysen M, Kalo Z . Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making--Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016; 19(2):125-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.12.016. View

13.

Greene S, Tuzzio L, Cherkin D . A framework for making patient-centered care front and center. Perm J. 2012; 16(3):49-53. PMC: 3442762. DOI: 10.7812/TPP/12-025. View

14.

Joy S, Little E, Maruthur N, Purnell T, Bridges J . Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013; 31(10):877-92. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0089-7. View

15.

Hollin I, Paskett J, Schuster A, Crossnohere N, Bridges J . Best-Worst Scaling and the Prioritization of Objects in Health: A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022; 40(9):883-899. PMC: 9363399. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01167-1. View

16.

Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob E, Ellis A, Vass C . Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018; 37(2):201-226. PMC: 6386055. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0734-2. View

18.

Tricco A, Lillie E, Zarin W, OBrien K, Colquhoun H, Levac D . PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7):467-473. DOI: 10.7326/M18-0850. View

19.

Hall R, Medina-Lara A, Hamilton W, Spencer A . Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review. Patient. 2021; 15(3):269-285. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00559-3. View

20.

Jiang S, Ren R, Gu Y, Jeet V, Liu P, Li S . Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022; 41(1):43-57. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01198-8. View

21.

Bien D, Danner M, Vennedey V, Civello D, Evers S, Hiligsmann M . Patients' Preferences for Outcome, Process and Cost Attributes in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments. Patient. 2017; 10(5):553-565. PMC: 5605613. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y. View