Taking into Account Patient Preferences: A Consensus Study on the Assessment of Psychological Dimensions Within Patient Preference Studies

References

• FDA. Patient preference information – voluntary submission, review in premarket approval applications, humanitarian device exemption applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in decision summaries and device labeling: guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, ed. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm446680.pdf2016. Accessed May 25, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• EMA. The Patient’s Voice in the Evaluation of Medicines. European Medicines Agency, Stakeholders and Communication Division; 2013. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/report/report-workshop-patients-voice-evaluation-medicines_en.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2021
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Patient preference information—voluntary submission, review in premarket approval applications, humanitarian device exemption applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in decision summaries and device labeling: guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/92593/download. Accessed May 25, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Elwyn G, Frosch D, Rollnick S. Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):1–8. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-75
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutica I, Mc Vie G, Pravettoni G. Personalised medicine: the cognitive side of patients. Eur J Intern Med. 2014;25(8):685–688. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2014.07.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kondylakis H, Kazantzaki E, Koumakis L, et al. Development of interactive empowerment services in support of personalised medicine. Ecancermedicalscience. 2014;8:8. doi:10.3332/ecancer.2014.400
   Google Scholar
• Renzi C, Riva S, Masiero M, Pravettoni G. The choice dilemma in chronic hematological conditions: why choosing is not only a medical issue? A psycho-cognitive perspective. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016;99:134–140. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.12.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-grob EW, Berlin C, Levitan B, et al. Giving Patients’ Preferences a Voice in Medical Treatment Life Cycle: The PREFER Public–Private Project. Springer; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Huls SP, Whichello CL, van Exel J, Uyl-de Groot CA, de Bekker-grob EW. What is next for patient preferences in health technology assessment? A systematic review of the challenges. Value Health. 2019;22(11):1318–1328. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1930
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• (MDIC) MDIC. Patient centered risk-benefit project report. Available from: https://mdic-spi.org/tag/project-report/.
   Google Scholar
• Whichello C, Van Overbeeke E, Janssens R, et al. Factors and situations affecting the value of patient preference studies: semi-structured interviews in Europe and the US. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:1009. doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.01009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssens R, Russo S, van Overbeeke E, et al. Patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: what do stakeholders think? Semi-structured qualitative interviews in Europe and the USA. Patient. 2019;12(1):1–14. doi:10.1007/s40271-018-0324-6
   Google Scholar
• Russo S, Jongerius C, Faccio F, et al. Understanding patients’ preferences: a systematic review of psychological instruments used in patients’ preference and decision studies. Value Health. 2019;22(4):491–501. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.12.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazarus RS. Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. Am Psychol. 1991;46(8):819. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory 1970; 2018. Available from: https://ubir.buffalo.edu/xmlui/handle/10477/2895. Accessed September 8, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Lazarus RS. Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford University Press on Demand; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Rakos RF. Assertive Behavior: Theory, Research, and Training. Taylor & Frances/Routledge; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Deci EL, Ryan RM. The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;53(6):1024. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasser VG, Ryan RM. The relation of psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness to vitality, well‐being, and mortality in a nursing home 1. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1999;29(5):935–954. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00133.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray J, McNaughton N. The Neuropsychology of Anxiety. Oxford University Press; 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Suziedelis A, Lorr M. Conservative attitudes and authoritarian values. J Psychol. 1973;83(2):287–294. doi:10.1080/00223980.1973.9915616
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3).
   Google Scholar
• Compas BE. Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychol Bull. 1987;101(3):393. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.3.393
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driver MJ. Individual decision making and creativity. Organ Behav. 1979;59–91.
   Google Scholar
• Harren VA. A model of career decision making for college students. J Vocat Behav. 1979;14(2):119–133. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(79)90065-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Scheier MF, Carver CS. Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol. 1985;4(3):219. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, Gazmararian JA, Nurss J. Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 1999;38(1):33–42. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00116-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallston KA, Strudler wallston B, DeVellis R. Development of the multidimensional health locus of control (MHLC) scales. Health Educ Monogr. 1978;6(1):160–170. doi:10.1177/109019817800600107
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF. How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull. 2009;135(6):943. doi:10.1037/a0017327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Validation of the subjective numeracy scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(5):663–671. doi:10.1177/0272989X07303824
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dutta M, Bodie G, Basu A. Health disparity and the racial divide among the nation’s youth: internet as a site for change? In: John D, Catherine T, editors. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Pr; 2008:175–198.
   Google Scholar
• Baker K, Jaksic S, Rowley D. The self-regulation model of illness representation applied to stuttering. J Psychosom Res. 1995;60:631–637.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan GA, Harmon RJ, Maslin-Cole CA. Mastery motivation: definition and measurement. Early Educ Dev. 1990;1(5):318–339. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed0105_1
   Google Scholar
• Kleinstäuber M. Mood. In: Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. New York: Springer; 2013:1259–1261.
   Google Scholar
• Kruglanski AW, Webster DM. Motivated closing of the mind: ‘seizing’ and ‘freezing’. Psychol Rev. 1996;103(2):263–283. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Feinstein JA, Jarvis WBG. Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: the life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(2):197. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Feng Kao C. The efficient assessment of need for cognition. J Pers Assess. 1984;48(3):306–307. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stockard J, Tusler M. Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(6p1):1918–1930. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00438.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allport GW. Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1961.
   Google Scholar
• Ryff CD, Singer BH. Best news yet on the six-factor model of well-being. Soc Sci Res. 2006;35(4):1103–1119. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pacini R, Epstein S. The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;76(6):972. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.972
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Psychological Association. The road to resilience 2014; 2017. Available from: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/road-resilience.aspx. Accessed May 25, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Mellers BA, Cooke AD. The role of task and context in preference measurement. Psychol Sci. 1996;7(2):76–82. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00333.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura A. Self-efficacy. In: Ramachandran VS, editor. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. Vol. 4. San Diego: Academic Press; 1994:71–81.
   Google Scholar
• Zuckerman M. Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking. Cambridge university press; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Antonovsky A, Sourani T. Family sense of coherence and family adaptation. J Marriage Fam. 1988;50(1):79–92. doi:10.2307/352429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen S. Social relationships and health. Am Psychol. 2004;59(8):676. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horne R, Weinman J. Patients’ beliefs about prescribed medicines and their role in adherence to treatment in chronic physical illness. J Psychosom Res. 1999;47(6):555–567. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(99)00057-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeney S, McKenna H, Hasson F. The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Vernon W. The delphi technique: a review. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2009;16(2):69–76. doi:10.12968/ijtr.2009.16.2.38892
   Google Scholar
• Kezar A, Maxey D. The delphi technique: an untapped approach of participatory research. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2016;19(2):143–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmines EG, Woods J. Validity. In: Lewis-Beck M, Liao TF, editors. The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Gushta MM, Rupp AA. Reliability. In: Salkind NJ, editor. Encyclopedia of Research Design. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–3191. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays RD, Weech-Maldonado R, Teresi JA, Wallace SP, Stewart AL. Commentary: copyright restrictions versus open access to survey instruments. Med Care. 2018;56(2):107–110. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000857
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingler JH, Schmidt K, Gentry A, Hu L, Terhorst L. Perceived Research Burden Assessment (PeRBA): instrument development and psychometric evaluation. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014;9(4):46. doi:10.1177/1556264614545037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharp LM, Frankel J. Respondent burden: a test of some common assumptions. Public Opin Q. 1983;47(1):36–53. doi:10.1086/268765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich CM, Wallen GR, Feister A, Grady C. Respondent burden in clinical research: when are we asking too much of subjects? Ethics Hum Res. 2005;27(4):17–20. doi:10.2307/3563957
   Google Scholar
• CDRH F. Patient Preference information–voluntary submission, review in premarket approval applications, humanitarian device exemption applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in decision summaries and device labeling. Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Other Stakeholders. 2016.
   Google Scholar