Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:03:20.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eliciting women's preferences in health care: A review of the literature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2004

Laura Sampietro-Colom ,
Victoria L. Phillips  and
Angela B. Hutchinson
Laura Sampietro-Colom
Affiliation:
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research (CAHTA)
Victoria L. Phillips
Affiliation:
Rollins School of Public Health
Angela B. Hutchinson
Affiliation:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The increasing availability of information about health care suggests an expanding role for consumers to exercise their preferences in health-care decision-making. Numerous methods are available to assess consumer preferences in health care. We conducted a systematic review to characterize the study of women's preferences about health care

Methods: A MEDLINE search from 1965 to July 1999 was conducted as well as hand searches of the itshape Medical Decision Making Journal (1981–1999) and references from retrieved articles. Only original articles on women's health issues were selected. Information on thirty-one variables related to study characteristics and preferences were extracted by two independent investigators. A third investigator resolved disagreements. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted to synthesize the data.

Results: Four hundred eighty-three studies were identified in the initial search. Seventy articles were selected for review based on title, abstract, and inclusion criteria. There was an increase in published articles and number of methods used to elicit preferences. White women were studied more than black women (p<.001). Preferences were mainly studied in outpatient settings (p<.005) and in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada (83 percent). Preferences related to participation in decision-making were the most common (21 percent). Only 4 percent of the studies were performed to inform the debate for public policy questions. Willingness to pay was the method most used (11 percent), followed by category scaling (10 percent), rating scale (9 percent), standard-gamble (6 percent). Preferences for individual particular (opposed to sequential and health states) outcomes (68 percent), different treatments/tests (47 percent), and related to a treatment episode (31 percent) were addressed. Information regarding diseases, conditions, or procedures was given in 57 percent of studies. Information provided was mainly written (37 percent) and included positive and negative potential outcomes (67 percent). There is no relationship between the method or tool used for delivery information and the choice performed.

Conclusions: The literature on preferences in women's health care is limited to a fairly homogeneous population (white women from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada). Additionally, use of utility-based measures to capture preferences has decreased over time while others methods (e.g., time trade-off [TTO], contingent valuation) have increased. Women's preferences are not necessarily uniform even when asked similar questions using similar tools. Little information on women's preferences exists to inform policy-makers about women's health care.

Keywords

WomenPreferencesMethodsDecision-makingParticipation
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 145 - 155
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anapol D, Wagner NN. 1978 Patient provider preferences and the pelvic examination. Nurse Pract. 3: 13.Google Scholar
Bachelot A, Cludy L, Spira A. 1992 Conditions for choosing between drug-induced and surgical abortions. Contraception. 45: 547– 559.Google Scholar
Barry MJ, Mulley AG Jr, Fowler FJ, Wennberg JW. 1988 Watchful waiting vs immediate transurethral resection for symptomatic prostatism. The importance of patients' preferences. JAMA. 259: 3010– 3017.Google Scholar
Barsevick AM, Johnson JE. 1990 Preference for information and involvement, information seeking and emotional responses of women undergoing colposcopy. Res Nurs Health. 13: 1– 7.Google Scholar
Bastian H. 1998 Speaking up for ourselves. The evolution of consumer advocacy in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 14: 3– 23.Google Scholar
Beaver K, Luker KA, Owens RG, et al. 1996 Treatment decision making in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Cancer Nurs. 19: 8– 19.Google Scholar
Becker MH, Maiman LA. 1980 Strategies for enhancing patient compliance. J Community Health. 6: 113– 135.Google Scholar
Berwick DM, Weinstein MC. 1985 What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Med Care. 23: 881– 893.Google Scholar
Bessette L, Keller RB, Liang MH, et al. 1997 Patients' preferences and their relationship with satisfaction following carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg [Am]. 22: 613– 620.Google Scholar
Bilodeau BA, Degner LF. 1996 Information needs, sources of information, and decisional roles in women with breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 23: 691– 696.Google Scholar
Bryce RL, Bradley MT, McCormick SM. 1989 To what extent would women prefer chorionic villus sampling to amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 3: 137– 145.Google Scholar
Cairns J, Shackley P, Hundley V. 1996 Decision making with respect to diagnostic testing: A method of valuing the benefits of antenatal screening. Med Decis Making. 16: 161– 168.Google Scholar
Chapman GB, Elstein AS, Hughes KK. 1995 Effects of patient education on decisions about breast cancer treatments: A preliminary report. Med Decis Making. 15: 231– 239.Google Scholar
Christensen-Szalanski JJ. 1984 Discount functions and the measurement of patients' values. Women's decisions during childbirth. Med Decis Making. 4: 47– 58.Google Scholar
Ciampi A, Silberfeld M, Till JE. 1982 Measurement of individual preferences. The importance of “situation-specific” variables. Med Decis Making. 2: 483– 495.Google Scholar
Cleary PD, Edgman-Levitan S. 1997 Health care quality. Incorporating consumer perspectives. JAMA. 278: 1608– 1612.Google Scholar
Coulter A, Peto V, Doll H. 1994 Patients' preferences and general practitioners' decisions in the treatment of menstrual disorders. Fam Pract. 11: 67– 74.Google Scholar
Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D, et al. 1997 Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA. 277: 1485– 1492.Google Scholar
Donaldson C, Hundley V, Mapp T. 1998 Willingness to pay: A method for measuring preferences for maternity care? Birth. 25: 32– 39.Google Scholar
Donaldson C, Shackley P, Abdalla M, Miedzybrodzka Z. 1995 Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Health Econ. 4: 439– 452.Google Scholar
Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance GW. 1997 Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Elderkin-Thompson V, Waitzkin H. 1999 Differences in clinical communication by gender. J Gen Intern Med. 14: 112– 121.Google Scholar
Elit LM, Levine MN, Gafni A, et al. 1996 Patients' preferences for therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: Development, testing, and application of a bedside decision instrument. Gynecol Oncol. 62: 329– 335.Google Scholar
Eng CM, Schechter C, Robinowitz J, et al. 1997 Prenatal genetic carrier testing using triple disease screening. JAMA. 278: 1268– 1272.Google Scholar
Faden RR, Gielen AC, Kass N, O'Campo P, Sheon A. 1993 Reproductive preferences of pregnant women under shifting probabilities of vertical HIV transmission. Womens Health Issues. 3: 216– 222.Google Scholar
Fergusson D, Laupacis A, Salmi LR, McAlister FA, Huet C. 2000 What should be included in meta-analyses? An exploration of methodological issues using the ISPOT meta-analyses. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 1109– 1119.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick R. 1990. Measurement of patient satisfaction. In: Hopkins A, Constain D, editors. Measuring the outcomes of medical care. London: Royal College of Physicians
Flood AB, Wennberg JE, Nease RF Jr, et al. 1996 The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team. J Gen Intern Med. 11: 342– 349.Google Scholar
Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. 1994 Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 14: 1101– 1108.Google Scholar
Frank DI. 1989 Treatment preferences of infertile couples. Appl Nurs Res. 2: 94– 95.Google Scholar
Frank DI. 1990 Factors related to decisions about infertility treatment. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 19: 162– 167.Google Scholar
Fuchs N, Prinz H, Koch U. 1996 Attitudes to current oral contraceptive use and future developments: The women's perspective. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 1: 275– 284.Google Scholar
Gabriel SE, Kneeland TS, Melton LJ III, et al. 1999 Health-related quality of life in economic evaluations for osteoporosis: Whose values should we use? Med Decis Making. 19: 141– 148.Google Scholar
Gayton WF, Walker L. 1974 Down syndrome: Informing the parents. A study of parental preferences. Am J Dis Child. 127: 510– 512.Google Scholar
Geller SE, Bernstein SJ, Harlow SD. 1997 The decision-making process for the treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding. J Womens Health. 6: 559– 567.Google Scholar
Gibb S, Donaldson C, Henshaw R. 1998 Assessing strength of preference for abortion method using ‘willingness to pay’: A useful research technique for measuring values. J Adv Nurs. 27: 30– 36.Google Scholar
Gramlich EP, Waitzfelder BE. 1998 Interactive video assists in clinical decision making. Methods Inf Med. 37: 201– 205.Google Scholar
Granberg M, Wikland M, Nilsson L, Hamberger L. 1995 Couples' willingness to pay for IVF/ET. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 74: 199– 202.Google Scholar
Green PE, 1978 Srinivasan VA Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. J Consum Res. 5: 103– 123.Google Scholar
Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware JE Jr. 1985 Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 102: 520– 528.Google Scholar
Greenfield S, Kaplan SH, Ware JE Jr, Yano EM, Frank HJ. 1988 Patients' participation in medical care: Effects on blood sugar control and quality of life in diabetes. J Gen Intern Med. 3: 448– 457.Google Scholar
Hack TF, Degner LF, Dyck DG. 1994 Relationship between preferences for decisional control and illness information among women with breast cancer: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Soc Sci Med. 39: 279– 289.Google Scholar
Hayman JA, Fairclough DL, Harris JR, Weeks JC. 1997 Patient preferences concerning the trade-off between the risks and benefits of routine radiation therapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 15: 1252– 1260.Google Scholar
Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Albert N. 1999 Patient or physician preferences for decision analysis: The prenatal genetic testing decision. Med Decis Making. 19: 66– 77.Google Scholar
Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Hadro TA. 1994 Preferences of pregnant women for amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling for prenatal testing: Comparison of patients' choices and those of a decision-analytic model. J Clin Epidemiol. 47: 1215– 1228.Google Scholar
Henshaw RC, Naji SA, Russell IT, Templeton AA. 1993 Comparison of medical abortion with surgical vacuum aspiration: Women's preferences and acceptability of treatment. BMJ. 307: 714– 7.Google Scholar
Hertz P, Stamps PL. 1977 Appointment-keeping behavior re-evaluated. Am J Public Health. 67: 1033– 1036.Google Scholar
Holmes MM, Rovner DR, Rothert ML, et al. 1987 Women's and physicians' utilities for health outcomes in estrogen replacement therapy. J Gen Intern Med. 2: 178– 182.Google Scholar
Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Entwistle V, Coulter A, O'Connor A, Rovner DR. 2001 Patient choice modules for summaries of clinical effectiveness: A proposal. BMJ. 322: 664– 667.Google Scholar
Hornberger JC, Habraken H, Bloch DA. 1995 Minimum data needed on patient preferences for accurate, efficient medical decision making. Med Care. 33: 297– 310.Google Scholar
Hughes KK. 1993 Decision making by patients with breast cancer: The role of information in treatment selection. Oncol Nurs Forum. 20: 623– 628.Google Scholar
Jacoby A. 1987 Women's preferences for and satisfaction with current procedures in childbirth-findings from a national study. Midwifery. 3: 117– 124.Google Scholar
Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, et al. 1998 Patients' utilities for cancer treatments: A study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Med Decis Making. 18: 391– 399.Google Scholar
Johnson JD, Meischke H. 1994 Women's preferences for cancer-related information from specific types of mass media. Health Care Women Int. 15: 23– 30.Google Scholar
Johnson JD, Roberts CS, Cox CE, et al. 1996 Breast cancer patients' personality style, age, and treatment decision making. J Surg Oncol. 63: 183– 186.Google Scholar
Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE, Jr. 1989 Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care. 27: S110– S127.Google Scholar
Karlson EW, Daltroy LH, Liang MH, Eaton HE, Katz JN. 1997 Gender differences in patient preferences may underlie differential utilization of elective surgery. Am J Med. 102: 524– 530.Google Scholar
Kasper JF, Mulley AG Jr, Wennberg JE. 1992 Developing shared decision-making programs to improve the quality of health care. QRB Qual Rev Bul. 18: 183– 190.Google Scholar
Kuppermann M, Shiboski S, Feeny D, Elkin EP, Washington AE. 1997 Can preference scores for discrete states be used to derive preference scores for an entire path of events? An application to prenatal diagnosis. Med Decis Making. 17: 42– 55.Google Scholar
Larkin M. 1999 Many women in quandary about HRT. Lancet. 354: 2141.Google Scholar
Larsen DE, Rootman I. 1976 Physician role performance and patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 10: 29– 32.Google Scholar
Levine MN, Gafni A, Markham B, MacFarlane D. 1992 A bedside decision instrument to elicit a patient's preference concerning adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 117: 53– 58.Google Scholar
Linder-Pelz S, Struening EL. 1985 The multidimensionality of patient satisfaction with a clinic visit. J Community Health. 10: 42– 54.Google Scholar
Lindley C, Vasa S, Sawyer WT, Winer EP. 1998 Quality of life and preferences for treatment following systemic adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 16: 1380– 1387.Google Scholar
Linn MW, Linn BS, Stein SR. 1982 Satisfaction with ambulatory care and compliance in older patients. Med Care. 20: 606– 614.Google Scholar
Lippman A, Perry TB, Mandel S, Cartier L. 1985 Chorionic villi sampling: Women's attitudes. Am J Med Genet. 22: 395– 401.Google Scholar
McQuellon RP, Muss HB, Hoffman SL, et al. 1995 Patient preferences for treatment of metastatic breast cancer: A study of women with early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 13: 858– 868.Google Scholar
Miedzybrodzka Z, Semper J, Shackley P, Abdalla M, Donaldson C. 1995 Stepwise or couple antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis?: Women's preferences and willingness to pay. J Med Genet. 32: 282– 283.Google Scholar
Moore SM, Kramer FM 1996 Women's and men's preferences for cardiac rehabilitation program features. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 16: 163– 168.Google Scholar
Mulley AG Jr. 1989 Assessing patients' utilities. Can the ends justify the means? Med Care. 27: S269– S281.Google Scholar
Neumann PJ, Johannesson M. 1994 The willingness to pay for in vitro fertilization: A pilot study using contingent valuation. Med Care. 32: 686– 699.Google Scholar
Novack DH, Suchman AL, Clark W, et al. 1997 Calibrating the physician. Personal awareness and effective patient care. Working Group on Promoting Physician Personal Awareness, American Academy on Physician and Patient. JAMA. 278: 502– 509.Google Scholar
O'Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells GA, et al. 1998 A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: Decision support framework and evaluation. Patient Educ Couns. 33: 267– 279.Google Scholar
Ortega A, Dranitsaris G, Sturgeon J, Sutherland H, Oza A. 1997 Cost-utility analysis of paclitaxel in combination with cisplatin for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 66: 454– 463.Google Scholar
Patrick DL, Erickson P. 1993 Health status and health policy. In: Quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. New York: Oxford University Press; 22– 26.
Pauker SG, Pauker SP, McNeil BJ. 1981 The effect of private attitudes on public policy. Prenatal screening for neural tube defects as a prototype. Med Decis Making. 1: 103– 114.Google Scholar
Pauker SP, Pauker SG. 1987 The amniocentesis decision: Ten years of decision analytic experience. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser. 23: 151– 169.Google Scholar
Robinson K, Gathehouse S, Browning GG. 1996 Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryncological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 105: 415– 422.Google Scholar
Rosen AS, Nystedt L, Bygdeman M, Lundstrom V. 1979 Acceptability of a nonsurgical method to terminate very early pregnancy in comparison to vacuum aspiration. Contraception. 19: 107– 117.Google Scholar
Ross CK, Steward CA, Sinacore JM. 1993 The importance of patient preferences in the measurement of health care satisfaction. Med Care. 31: 1138– 1149.Google Scholar
Ryan M. 1996 Using willingness to pay to assess the benefits of assisted reproductive techniques. Health Econ. 5: 543– 558.Google Scholar
Ryan M. 1999 Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: An application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med. 48: 535– 546.Google Scholar
Ryan M, Hughes J. 1997 Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ. 6: 261– 273.Google Scholar
Ryan M, Ratcliffe J, Tucker J. 1997 Using willingness to pay to value alternative models of antenatal care. Soc Sci Med. 44: 371– 380.Google Scholar
Schackman BR, Goldie SJ, Freedbert K, Losina E, Brazier J, Weinstein MC. 2002 Comparison of health state utilities using community and patient preference weights derived from a survey of patients with HIV/AIDS. Med Decis Making. 22: 27– 38.Google Scholar
Shaw RW, Brickley MR, Evans L, Edwards MJ. 1998 Perceptions of women on the impact of menorrhagia on their health using multi-attribute utility assessment. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 105: 1155– 1159.Google Scholar
Siminoff LA, Fetting JH. 1989 Effects of outcome framing on treatment decisions in the real world: Impact of framing on adjuvant breast cancer decisions. Med Decis Making. 9: 262– 271.Google Scholar
Street RL Jr, Voigt B, Geyer C Jr, Manning T, Swanson GP. 1995 Increasing patient involvement in choosing treatment for early breast cancer. Cancer. 76: 2275– 2285.Google Scholar
Suchman AL, Roter D, Green M, Lipkin M Jr. 1993 Physician satisfaction with primary care office visits. Collaborative Study Group of the American Academy on Physician and Patient. Med Care. 31: 1083– 1092.Google Scholar
Timpka T, Buur T. 1991 Medical reasoning and patient requests in decision-making for female genitourinary infections. Methods Inf Med. 30: 215– 220.Google Scholar
Tooley PJ. 1985 Patient and doctor preferences in the treatment of vaginal candidosis. Practitioner. 229: 655– 660.Google Scholar
Tversky A, Kahenman D. 1981 The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 211: 453– 458.Google Scholar
UK Department of Health. 1999 The new NHS. Modern & dependable. Available at: http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/newnhs/forward.htm. Accessed: July
Unic I, Stalmeier PF, Verhoef LC, van Daal WA. 1998; Assessment of the time-tradeoff values for prophylactic mastectomy of women with a suspected genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Med Decis Making. 18: 268– 277.Google Scholar
Valanis B, Rumpler C. 1982; Healthy women's preferences in breast cancer treatment. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 37: 311– 316.Google Scholar
van de Weijer PH, Barentsen R, Kenemans P. 1998; Women's expectations and acceptance of cyclic induced HRT bleeds. Maturitas. 30: 257– 263.Google Scholar
Verp MS, Heckerling PS. 1995; Use of decision analysis to evaluate patients' choices of diagnostic prenatal test. Am J Med Genet. 58: 337– 344.Google Scholar
Vuori H, Aaku T, Aine E, Erkko R, Johansson R. 1972; Doctor-patient relationship in the light of patients' experiences. Soc Sci Med. 6: 723– 730.Google Scholar
Wagner EH, Barrett P, Barry MJ, Barlow W, Fowler FJ Jr. 1995; The effect of a shared decisionmaking program on rates of surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Pilot results. Med Care. 33: 765– 770.Google Scholar
Warner P. 1994; Preferences regarding treatments for period problems: Relationship to menstrual and demographic factors. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 15: 93– 110.Google Scholar
Webb R, Opdahl M. 1996; Breast and pelvic examinations: Easing women's discomfort. Can Fam Physician. 42: 54– 58.Google Scholar
Wei JP, Sherry RM, Baisden BL, Peckel J, Lala G. 1995; Prospective hospital-based survey of attitudes of Southern women toward surgical treatment of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2: 360– 364.Google Scholar
Willson P, McNamara JR. 1982; How perceptions of a simulated physician-patient interaction influence intended satisfaction and compliance. Soc Sci Med. 16: 1699– 1704.Google Scholar
Wolf AM, Nasser JF, Wolf AM, Schorling JB. 1996; The impact of informed consent on patient interest in prostate-specific antigen screening. Arch Intern Med. 156: 1333– 1336.Google Scholar
Zethraeus N. 1998; Willingness to pay for hormone replacement therapy. Health Econ. 7: 31– 38.Google Scholar