4.6 Review

Discrete Choice Experiments to Elicit Patient Preferences for Decision Making in Transplantation

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 105, 期 5, 页码 960-967

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000003500

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council program grant BEAT-CKD [APP1092957]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding patient preferences and values are crucial in providing care for transplant recipients, as it supports shared decision making and self-management. Choice experiments, such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs), are increasingly used to quantify patient and community preferences in transplantation, playing a key role in organ allocation and determining core outcomes.
Providing care for transplant recipients is challenging given the need to maintain optimal graft function and survival while managing the debilitating side effects and complications associated with immunosuppression including infection, cancer, new-onset diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease. Given the complexity of treatment options and the uncertainty about long-term benefits and harms of treatment, understanding patient preferences and values are key to ensuring that clinical decisions take into consideration patient priorities to support shared decision making and self-management. Choice experiments are increasingly used to quantify patient and community preferences, including in the field of transplantation. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a well-established, validated methodology used to elicit preferences for decision making in health and other settings. In transplantation, for example, DCEs have been used to elicit patient preferences for outcomes following kidney transplantation, to identify community preferences factors for organ allocation and in establishing core outcomes. This article provides an overview of the concepts and methods used in the design of DCEs and how patients' preferences can be applied in shared decision making in transplantation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据