A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences
To summarize and quantify mean differences between directly elicited patient and population health state evaluations (= preferences) and to identify factors explaining these differences. Two meta-analyses of observational studies comparing directly elicited patient and population preferences for two...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2006-07, Vol.59 (7), p.653-664 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 664 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 653 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| container_volume | 59 |
| creator | Dolders, Maria G.T. Zeegers, Maurice P.A. Groot, Wim Ament, André |
| description | To summarize and quantify mean differences between directly elicited patient and population health state evaluations (= preferences) and to identify factors explaining these differences.
Two meta-analyses of observational studies comparing directly elicited patient and population preferences for two stratified health state classifications: actual/hypothetical and hypothetical/hypothetical health states.
Thirty-three articles comparing directly elicited patient and population preferences were included, yielding 78 independent preference estimates. These preference estimates served as input for the two stratified health state classifications. Data on health state assessments, elicitation methods, assessment method, and population characteristics was extracted by one reviewer, and checked by two other reviewers. These parameters were used to explain sources of heterogeneity. Overall, patients' actual health state preferences were not significantly higher than populations hypothetical health state preferences (summary mean difference [SMD] = −0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.01, 0.03). Nor did preferences for hypothetical health states differ between patients and population (SMD −0.00, 95% CI = −0.02, 0.02). Most parameters substantially influenced the SMD, although the magnitude and direction differed for the two strata used (all
P-values |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.020 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68063267</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0895435606000114</els_id><sourcerecordid>2734473671</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-488431a671d89af753126583786284c2174ddfd6b03d1b9c1a8039fddb87a4b63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkV1rFTEQhoMo9rT6F8qC6N2u-U72zlLUCgVv9Dpkk1nJspusya7Sf98czikFb7waZuaZYeZ9EbomuCOYyI9TN7k5RFhDRzEWHVYdpvgFOhCtdCt6Sl6iA9a9aDkT8gJdljJhTBRW4jW6IFJJQaU6oOGmWWCzrY12fiihNB6WFMuW7Qaliakp4VcMY3A2bo0P4wgZoqutAba_ALFZ7Rag9mz0zZrWfa55quUMT-gb9Gq0c4G353iFfn75_OP2rr3__vXb7c196zjlW8u15oxYqYjXvR2VYIRKoZnSkmruKFHc-9HLATNPht4RqzHrR-8HrSwfJLtCH05715x-71A2s4TiYJ5thLQXIzWWrD5dwXf_gFPacxWgGIIZI5pLqSslT5TLqZT6jllzWGx-qJA5emAm8-SBOXpgsDLVgzp4fV6_Dwv457Gz6BV4fwZscXYes40ulGdO9bTXWFTu04mDqtqfANkUF46S-pDBbcan8L9bHgGXeKjT</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1033184668</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Dolders, Maria G.T. ; Zeegers, Maurice P.A. ; Groot, Wim ; Ament, André</creator><creatorcontrib>Dolders, Maria G.T. ; Zeegers, Maurice P.A. ; Groot, Wim ; Ament, André</creatorcontrib><description>To summarize and quantify mean differences between directly elicited patient and population health state evaluations (= preferences) and to identify factors explaining these differences.
Two meta-analyses of observational studies comparing directly elicited patient and population preferences for two stratified health state classifications: actual/hypothetical and hypothetical/hypothetical health states.
Thirty-three articles comparing directly elicited patient and population preferences were included, yielding 78 independent preference estimates. These preference estimates served as input for the two stratified health state classifications. Data on health state assessments, elicitation methods, assessment method, and population characteristics was extracted by one reviewer, and checked by two other reviewers. These parameters were used to explain sources of heterogeneity. Overall, patients' actual health state preferences were not significantly higher than populations hypothetical health state preferences (summary mean difference [SMD] = −0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.01, 0.03). Nor did preferences for hypothetical health states differ between patients and population (SMD −0.00, 95% CI = −0.02, 0.02). Most parameters substantially influenced the SMD, although the magnitude and direction differed for the two strata used (all
P-values <.05).
The actual/hypothetical and hypothetical/hypothetical meta-analyses demonstrated no significant differences between patient and population preferences, suggesting that both can be used to allocate scarce resources.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.020</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16765267</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Consumer Behavior ; Decision making ; Epidemiology ; General aspects ; Health policy ; Health state ; Health Status ; Heterogeneity ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Methodology ; Observational studies ; Patient preferences ; Patient Satisfaction ; Population characteristics ; Population preferences ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Quality of life ; Resource Allocation ; Statistics, Nonparametric ; Studies ; Tradeoff analysis</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2006-07, Vol.59 (7), p.653-664</ispartof><rights>2006 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-488431a671d89af753126583786284c2174ddfd6b03d1b9c1a8039fddb87a4b63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-488431a671d89af753126583786284c2174ddfd6b03d1b9c1a8039fddb87a4b63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1033184668?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995,64385,64387,64389,72469</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17929805$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16765267$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dolders, Maria G.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeegers, Maurice P.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groot, Wim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ament, André</creatorcontrib><title>A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>To summarize and quantify mean differences between directly elicited patient and population health state evaluations (= preferences) and to identify factors explaining these differences.
Two meta-analyses of observational studies comparing directly elicited patient and population preferences for two stratified health state classifications: actual/hypothetical and hypothetical/hypothetical health states.
Thirty-three articles comparing directly elicited patient and population preferences were included, yielding 78 independent preference estimates. These preference estimates served as input for the two stratified health state classifications. Data on health state assessments, elicitation methods, assessment method, and population characteristics was extracted by one reviewer, and checked by two other reviewers. These parameters were used to explain sources of heterogeneity. Overall, patients' actual health state preferences were not significantly higher than populations hypothetical health state preferences (summary mean difference [SMD] = −0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.01, 0.03). Nor did preferences for hypothetical health states differ between patients and population (SMD −0.00, 95% CI = −0.02, 0.02). Most parameters substantially influenced the SMD, although the magnitude and direction differed for the two strata used (all
P-values <.05).
The actual/hypothetical and hypothetical/hypothetical meta-analyses demonstrated no significant differences between patient and population preferences, suggesting that both can be used to allocate scarce resources.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Consumer Behavior</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Health policy</subject><subject>Health state</subject><subject>Health Status</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Patient preferences</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Population characteristics</subject><subject>Population preferences</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Resource Allocation</subject><subject>Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Tradeoff analysis</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkV1rFTEQhoMo9rT6F8qC6N2u-U72zlLUCgVv9Dpkk1nJspusya7Sf98czikFb7waZuaZYeZ9EbomuCOYyI9TN7k5RFhDRzEWHVYdpvgFOhCtdCt6Sl6iA9a9aDkT8gJdljJhTBRW4jW6IFJJQaU6oOGmWWCzrY12fiihNB6WFMuW7Qaliakp4VcMY3A2bo0P4wgZoqutAba_ALFZ7Rag9mz0zZrWfa55quUMT-gb9Gq0c4G353iFfn75_OP2rr3__vXb7c196zjlW8u15oxYqYjXvR2VYIRKoZnSkmruKFHc-9HLATNPht4RqzHrR-8HrSwfJLtCH05715x-71A2s4TiYJ5thLQXIzWWrD5dwXf_gFPacxWgGIIZI5pLqSslT5TLqZT6jllzWGx-qJA5emAm8-SBOXpgsDLVgzp4fV6_Dwv457Gz6BV4fwZscXYes40ulGdO9bTXWFTu04mDqtqfANkUF46S-pDBbcan8L9bHgGXeKjT</recordid><startdate>20060701</startdate><enddate>20060701</enddate><creator>Dolders, Maria G.T.</creator><creator>Zeegers, Maurice P.A.</creator><creator>Groot, Wim</creator><creator>Ament, André</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060701</creationdate><title>A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences</title><author>Dolders, Maria G.T. ; Zeegers, Maurice P.A. ; Groot, Wim ; Ament, André</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-488431a671d89af753126583786284c2174ddfd6b03d1b9c1a8039fddb87a4b63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Consumer Behavior</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Health policy</topic><topic>Health state</topic><topic>Health Status</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Patient preferences</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Population characteristics</topic><topic>Population preferences</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Resource Allocation</topic><topic>Statistics, Nonparametric</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Tradeoff analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dolders, Maria G.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeegers, Maurice P.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groot, Wim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ament, André</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dolders, Maria G.T.</au><au>Zeegers, Maurice P.A.</au><au>Groot, Wim</au><au>Ament, André</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2006-07-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>59</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>653</spage><epage>664</epage><pages>653-664</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>To summarize and quantify mean differences between directly elicited patient and population health state evaluations (= preferences) and to identify factors explaining these differences.
Two meta-analyses of observational studies comparing directly elicited patient and population preferences for two stratified health state classifications: actual/hypothetical and hypothetical/hypothetical health states.
Thirty-three articles comparing directly elicited patient and population preferences were included, yielding 78 independent preference estimates. These preference estimates served as input for the two stratified health state classifications. Data on health state assessments, elicitation methods, assessment method, and population characteristics was extracted by one reviewer, and checked by two other reviewers. These parameters were used to explain sources of heterogeneity. Overall, patients' actual health state preferences were not significantly higher than populations hypothetical health state preferences (summary mean difference [SMD] = −0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.01, 0.03). Nor did preferences for hypothetical health states differ between patients and population (SMD −0.00, 95% CI = −0.02, 0.02). Most parameters substantially influenced the SMD, although the magnitude and direction differed for the two strata used (all
P-values <.05).
The actual/hypothetical and hypothetical/hypothetical meta-analyses demonstrated no significant differences between patient and population preferences, suggesting that both can be used to allocate scarce resources.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>16765267</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.020</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2006-07, Vol.59 (7), p.653-664 |
| issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68063267 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Consumer Behavior Decision making Epidemiology General aspects Health policy Health state Health Status Heterogeneity Humans Medical sciences Meta-analysis Methodology Observational studies Patient preferences Patient Satisfaction Population characteristics Population preferences Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Quality of life Resource Allocation Statistics, Nonparametric Studies Tradeoff analysis |
| title | A meta-analysis demonstrates no significant differences between patient and population preferences |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T17%3A22%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20meta-analysis%20demonstrates%20no%20significant%20differences%20between%20patient%20and%20population%20preferences&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Dolders,%20Maria%20G.T.&rft.date=2006-07-01&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=653&rft.epage=664&rft.pages=653-664&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.020&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2734473671%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1033184668&rft_id=info:pmid/16765267&rft_els_id=S0895435606000114&rfr_iscdi=true |