A systematic review of questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines
Received 19 June 2018
Accepted for publication 17 August 2018
Published 2 November 2018 Volume 2018:12 Pages 2309—2323
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Naifeng Liu
Fei Bai,1–4,* Juan Ling,1–3,* Gloria Esoimeme,5 Liang Yao,1–3 Mingxia Wang,1,6 Jiajun Huang,1,7 Anchen Shi,1,6 Zehui Cao,1,7 Yaolong Chen,1–3 Jinhui Tian,1–3 Xiaoqin Wang,1–3 Kehu Yang1–3
1Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; 2Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; 3WHO Collaborating Center for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou 730000, China; 4National Center for Medical Administration Service, Beijing, China; 5University of South Carolina, Arnold School of Public Health, Columbia, SC, USA; 6The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; 7The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
*These authors contributed equally in this work
Objective: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate questionnaires about patient’s values and preferences to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires to be used when developing clinical practice guidelines.
Methods: A systematic literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang Database was performed to identify studies on questionnaires evaluating patient’s values and preferences. The articles that used fully structured questionnaires or scales with standardized questions and answer options were included. We assessed the questionnaires’ construction and content with a psychometric methodology and summarized the domains and items about patient’s preferences and values.
Results: A total of 7,008 records were retrieved by the search strategy and scanned, and 20 articles were finally included. Of these, 10 (50%) articles described the process of item generation and only four questionnaires (20%, 4/20) mentioned the pilot testing. Regarding “validity”, seven questionnaires (35%, 7/20) assessed validity and only one (5%, 1/20) questionnaire assessed internal consistency, with Cornbrash’s α values of 0.74–0.87. For “acceptability”, the time to complete the questionnaires ranged from 10 to 30 minutes and only nine studies (45%, 9/20) reported the response rates. In addition, the results of domains and items about patient’s preferences and values showed that the “effectiveness” domain was the most considered item in the patient’s value questionnaire followed by “safety”, “prognosis”, and others, whereas the least considered domain was “physician’s experience”.
Conclusion: Only a few studies have developed questionnaires with rigorous psychometric methods to measure patient’s preferences and values. Currently, still there is no valid or reliable questionnaire for patient’s preferences and values for use when developing clinical practice guidelines. Further study should be conducted to develop standardized instruments to measure patient’s preferences and values. This study provides the domains and items that may be used in formulating questionnaires about patient’s preferences and values.
Keywords: questionnaires, guideline, patient’s values and preferences, systematic review, Patient Satisfaction
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]