Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCol, Nananda F.
dc.contributor.authorSolomon, Andrew J.
dc.contributor.authorSpringmann, Vicky
dc.contributor.authorGarbin, Calvin P.
dc.contributor.authorIonete, Carolina
dc.contributor.authorPbert, Lori
dc.contributor.authorAlvarez, Enrique
dc.contributor.authorTierman, Brenda
dc.contributor.authorHopson, Ashli
dc.contributor.authorKutz, Christen
dc.contributor.authorMorales, Idanis Berrios
dc.contributor.authorGriffin, Carolyn
dc.contributor.authorPhillips, Glenn
dc.contributor.authorNgo, Long H.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:19.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:04:30Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:04:30Z
dc.date.issued2018-01-01
dc.date.submitted2018-05-11
dc.identifier.citation<p>Med Decis Making. 2018 Jan;38(1):44-55. doi: 10.1177/0272989X17724434. Epub 2017 Aug 14. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X17724434">Link to article on publisher's site</a></p>
dc.identifier.issn0272-989X (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0272989X17724434
dc.identifier.pmid28806143
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/44651
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Patients facing a high-stakes clinical decision are often confronted with an overwhelming array of options. High-quality decisions about treatment should reflect patients' preferences as well as their clinical characteristics. Preference-assessment instruments typically focus on pre-selected clinical outcomes and attributes chosen by the investigator. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a patient-centered approach to elicit and compare the treatment goals of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and healthcare providers (HCPs). METHODS: We conducted five nominal group technique (NGT) meetings to elicit and prioritize treatment goals from patients and HCPs. Five to nine participants in each group responded silently to one question about their treatment goals. Responses were shared, consolidated, and ranked to develop a prioritized list for each group. The ranked lists were combined. Goals were rated and sorted into categories. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to derive a visual representation, or cognitive map, of the data and to identify conceptual clusters, reflecting how frequently items were sorted into the same category. RESULTS: Five NGT groups yielded 34 unique patient-generated treatment goals and 31 unique HCP-generated goals. There were differences between patients and HCPs in the goals generated and how they were clustered. Patients' goals tended to focus on the impact of specific symptoms on their day-to-day lives, whereas providers' goals focused on slowing down the course of disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the treatment goals of patients and HCPs underscore the limitations of using HCP- or investigator-identified goals. This new adaptation of cognitive mapping is a patient-centered approach that can be used to generate and organize the outcomes and attributes for values clarification exercises while minimizing investigator bias and maximizing relevance to patients.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=28806143&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a></p>
dc.rightsThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.subjectclinical decision making
dc.subjectcognitive mapping
dc.subjecthierarchical cluster analysis
dc.subjectmultidimensional scaling
dc.subjectmultiple sclerosis
dc.subjectnominal group technique
dc.subjectpreference assessment
dc.subjectpreference sensitive care
dc.subjectshared decision making
dc.subjectvalues clarification
dc.subjectBehavioral Medicine
dc.subjectBehavior and Behavior Mechanisms
dc.subjectCommunity Health
dc.subjectCommunity Health and Preventive Medicine
dc.subjectHealth Services Administration
dc.titleWhose Preferences Matter? A Patient-Centered Approach for Eliciting Treatment Goals
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making
dc.source.volume38
dc.source.issue1
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&amp;context=prc_pubs&amp;unstamped=1
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/prc_pubs/92
dc.identifier.contextkey12115528
refterms.dateFOA2022-08-23T17:04:30Z
html.description.abstract<p>BACKGROUND: Patients facing a high-stakes clinical decision are often confronted with an overwhelming array of options. High-quality decisions about treatment should reflect patients' preferences as well as their clinical characteristics. Preference-assessment instruments typically focus on pre-selected clinical outcomes and attributes chosen by the investigator.</p> <p>OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a patient-centered approach to elicit and compare the treatment goals of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and healthcare providers (HCPs).</p> <p>METHODS: We conducted five nominal group technique (NGT) meetings to elicit and prioritize treatment goals from patients and HCPs. Five to nine participants in each group responded silently to one question about their treatment goals. Responses were shared, consolidated, and ranked to develop a prioritized list for each group. The ranked lists were combined. Goals were rated and sorted into categories. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to derive a visual representation, or cognitive map, of the data and to identify conceptual clusters, reflecting how frequently items were sorted into the same category.</p> <p>RESULTS: Five NGT groups yielded 34 unique patient-generated treatment goals and 31 unique HCP-generated goals. There were differences between patients and HCPs in the goals generated and how they were clustered. Patients' goals tended to focus on the impact of specific symptoms on their day-to-day lives, whereas providers' goals focused on slowing down the course of disease progression.</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the treatment goals of patients and HCPs underscore the limitations of using HCP- or investigator-identified goals. This new adaptation of cognitive mapping is a patient-centered approach that can be used to generate and organize the outcomes and attributes for values clarification exercises while minimizing investigator bias and maximizing relevance to patients.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathprc_pubs/92
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Medicine, Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine
dc.contributor.departmentUMass Worcester Prevention Research Center
dc.source.pages44-55


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
0272989x17724434.pdf
Size:
1010.Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).