van Til, Janine A. and Peay,, Holly L. and Osman, Ahmed Mohamed Yehia and Bemden, Angie Botto-van and Thomas, Caitlin and Oedingen, Carina and Vass, Caroline and Schoefs, Elise and Batchelder, Laurie and Ozdemir, Semra and Poulos,, Christine (2026) A systematic review of quantitative health preference methods to support value clarification and shared decision making: a report of an ISPOR special interest group. Value in Health, 29 (8). pp. 1329-1342. ISSN 1098-3015 E-ISSN 1524-4733
|
PDF
- Published Version
Download (4MB) | Preview |
|
|
PDF
- Supplemental Material
Download (299kB) | Preview |
|
|
PDF
- Supplemental Material
Download (125kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to explore the design and outcomes of preference-based valueclarification methods (Pb-VCMs) used in the context of supporting patients’ clinical decisionmaking to understand whether guidance is used in Pb-VCM development and which Pb-VCM ismost effective.Methods: In April of 2023, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studiesreporting the development and/or evaluation of Pb-VCMs without restrictions on publicationdate. Two reviewers independently extracted data including context and clinical decisions,study methods, sample, Pb-VCM design and development, type of preference information, andmeasurement of outcomes, such as feasibility/acceptability and effectiveness. Data weresynthesized using descriptive and narrative analyses.Results: Of 3207 abstracts screened, 50 studies were included: 28 descriptive, 9 observational, and13 experimental. The most common Pb-VCM approaches were adaptive conjoint analysis (n = 16),analytic hierarchy process (n = 9), and simple ranking (n = 6). Most studies (n = 37) did not reportusing preference- or decision aid-specific guidelines to support development. Personalizedpreference information was provided to participants in 45 studies. Most studies reportedpositive findings related to feasibility and participant experience, although complexity wasidentified as a challenge. The most-frequently assessed outcomes were decisional conflict andvalue congruence. Evidence on effectiveness was limited and mixed.Conclusions: Although individual studies report positive findings, variation in design and reportingof existing studies hinders drawing of general conclusions regarding whether Pb-VCMs improvedecision-making processes and outcomes. Future research should focus on developingguidelines, for which the data extraction form developed for this study could serve as astarting point.
| Item Type: | Article (Journal) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | clinical decision support, patient-centered decision making, patient decision aids,shared decision making, value clarification methods. |
| Subjects: | H Social Sciences > HB Economic Theory > HB201 Value. Utility R Medicine > R Medicine (General) |
| Kulliyyahs/Centres/Divisions/Institutes (Can select more than one option. Press CONTROL button): | Kulliyyah of Pharmacy |
| Depositing User: | Dr. AHMED OSMAN |
| Date Deposited: | 21 Aug 2026 10:54 |
| Last Update: | 21 Aug 2026 10:54 |
| Queue Number: | 2026-08-Q4857 |
| URI: | http://irep.iium.edu.my/id/eprint/130945 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |