Suchergebnisse

ZusammenfassungWenn Patient*innen die Fähigkeit verlieren, in klinische Maßnahmen einzuwilligen, aber keine Patient*innen-Verfügung vorliegt, ist der mutmaßliche Wille zu ermitteln. Um dies besser als bislang gewährleisten zu können, wird der Einsatz eines Patient Preference Predictors diskutiert: ein Instrument, das auf der Basis algorithmischer Korrelationen (PPP) bzw. mit Hilfe eines Large Language Models (personalisierter PPP (P4)) die mutmaßliche Präferenz einer Person ermitteln soll. Ein Einsatz von PPPs/P4s ist allerdings kritisch zu sehen, da sowohl von epistemischer als auch von normativer Seite Bedenken anzumelden sind. So stellen nämlich rein korrelative Zusammenhänge keine adäquate Grundlage für die Ermittlung zu respektierender individueller (kontrafaktisch) autonomer Präferenzen dar. Der PPP ist daher abzulehnen. Bei einem P4 ist es fraglich, ob die notwendige Individualität und hinreichende Qualität der Präferenzermittlung gewährleistet werden kann. Sollte ein Ersatz menschlicher Stellvertreter*innen durch einen P4 erwogen werden, so ist zu kritisieren, dass notwendige Bedingungen zur Erfüllung des Prinzips des Respekts vor der Autonomie nicht erfüllt werden bzw. der darauf basierende Standard für stellvertretende Entscheidungen nicht gut eingehalten werden kann. Ein P4 sollte daher, wenn überhaupt, nur zur Unterstützung bei der Entscheidungsfindung herangezogen werden – und dies auch nur dann, wenn nachprüfbare Begründungen für eine Präferenzbestimmung durch den P4 bereitgestellt werden.

Current models of care emphasize the importance of including patients' values in the decision-making process. This is particularly important for decisions for which there are few data supporting a clear strategy or treatment choice. Constructing preferences for complex decisions requires that patients be able to consider multiple trade-offs between specific risks and benefits. Several marketing research techniques have been recently applied to heath care settings to facilitate this process. Most can be programmed to generate patients' preferences or priorities, which can then be used to improve patient–physician communication. In this article, we will describe some of the currently available approaches that have been successfully used in the health care setting. We provide case examples to illustrate the potential value of adopting each of these approaches in clinical practice.

Luca Bailo,1,* Laura Vergani,1,2,* Gabriella Pravettoni1,2 1Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan 20141, Italy; 2Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan 20122, Italy*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Luca BailoApplied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, via Ripamonti 435, Milan 20141, ItalyTel +39 0257489207Email luca.bailo@ieo.itAbstract: Guidelines and policies support the decision process to make sure that patients can benefit from the best treatment for their condition. The implementation of guidelines and policies is evolving, allowing decision makers to be able to choose between alternatives while considering the effect of biases and fallacies that may hinder their choice. Patient preferences play a precious role in those decisions in which is not possible to recognize an objective "best" alternative and it's not possible to nudge them toward one alternative based on scientific evidence and clinical experience. Having patient input as part of the decision process itself would allow the recognition of the attributes related to what is relevant for patients, which can be considered as important as clinical data. The authors advocate that the integration of preference-sensitive attributes with decision policies could provide a benefit against fallacies in the decision process when there is not a "best" alternative, and a shared decision-making paradigm allows both patient and clinician to recognize and pursue the option that best fits the individual case.Keywords: nudge, shared decision-making, health policies, patient preferences

A total of 537 dentate adults from nine randomly selected government dental centers in three states in Malaysia were interviewed to assess their preference for either exodontia or preservation of teeth when they experience toothache, or have carious anterior or posterior teeth. The assumptions tested were i) patients prefer exodontia rather than preservation when they have toothache, and ii) patients are more willing to have posterior teeth extracted than anterior teeth for caries. Both these assumptions were rejected. Even though the majority of the subjects preferred preservation (59) when having toothache, exodontia was the treatment of choice in a large proportion of subjects (41). Significant differences in preference were found among the various ethnic, educational, income, and age groups. However, when ethnicity was held constant, binary regression indicated that the variations observed were determined by education, income, and age groups and not by ethnicity. This record was migrated from the OpenDepot repository service in June, 2017 before shutting down.

BackgroundAlthough patient participation is strongly associated with high quality of healthcare, valid means to measure and report a comprehensive notion of patient participation are scarce. The Patient Preferences for Patient Participation (4Ps) is a new healthcare practice and research tool, comprising patients preferences as well as experiences. The 4Ps employs 12 items for the patient to conceptualise patient participation. The aim of this paper is to describe how the two perspectives of patient participation, namely preferences and experiences, can be combined to visualise and report preference-based patient participation.MethodsWith four response alternatives in each section, the 4Ps offers sixteen possible combinations of degree of match per item. Theoretical and clinical principles fostered a tentative order of six ranks and three levels of preference-based patient participation. To test the standard, statistical analyses for ordinal data were performed, using data from a randomised controlled trial evaluating an intervention aiming to improve patient participation. Further, structures for visualising the preference-based patient participation of individuals and groups were suggested.ResultsData from the 4Ps demonstrated the individuals preference-based patient participation, indicating either a match or a mismatch for each item. Mismatches represented either the experience of participation surpassing the patients preferences, or the patients preferences for patient participation not being established. At group level, the suggested approach for visualising and reporting the 4Ps demonstrated that the intervention group had a significantly higher proportion of sufficient preference-based patient participation for certain items than the control group. These results had not been identified earlier, when using the preferences and experiences of patient participation as separate measures.ConclusionsWays to easily acquaint stakeholders with patients preferences for patient participation are needed, in order for healthcare staff to better use resources to match the basic requirements of individuals and groups. While the 4Ps can guide professionals to patient participation as framed in legislations, concept analyses and by patients, a visualisation of the results is needed to capture preference-based patient participation. The proposed route to representing degree of match in preferences and experiences may also be relevant to other dimensions of quality of healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Although patient participation is strongly associated with high quality of healthcare, valid means to measure and report a comprehensive notion of patient participation are scarce. The Patient Preferences for Patient Participation (4Ps) is a new healthcare practice and research tool, comprising patients' preferences as well as experiences. The 4Ps employs 12 items for the patient to conceptualise patient participation. The aim of this paper is to describe how the two perspectives of patient participation, namely preferences and experiences, can be combined to visualise and report preference-based patient participation. METHODS: With four response alternatives in each section, the 4Ps offers sixteen possible combinations of degree of match per item. Theoretical and clinical principles fostered a tentative order of six ranks and three levels of preference-based patient participation. To test the standard, statistical analyses for ordinal data were performed, using data from a randomised controlled trial evaluating an intervention aiming to improve patient participation. Further, structures for visualising the preference-based patient participation of individuals and groups were suggested. RESULTS: Data from the 4Ps demonstrated the individuals' preference-based patient participation, indicating either a match or a mismatch for each item. Mismatches represented either the experience of participation surpassing the patient's preferences, or the patient's preferences for patient participation not being established. At group level, the suggested approach for visualising and reporting the 4Ps demonstrated that the intervention group had a significantly higher proportion of sufficient preference-based patient participation for certain items than the control group. These results had not been identified earlier, when using the preferences and experiences of patient participation as separate measures. CONCLUSIONS: Ways to easily acquaint stakeholders with patients' preferences for patient participation are needed, in order for healthcare staff to better use resources to match the basic requirements of individuals and groups. While the 4Ps can guide professionals to patient participation as framed in legislations, concept analyses and by patients, a visualisation of the results is needed to capture preference-based patient participation. The proposed route to representing degree of match in preferences and experiences may also be relevant to other dimensions of quality of healthcare.

BackgroundAlthough patient participation is strongly associated with high quality of healthcare, valid means to measure and report a comprehensive notion of patient participation are scarce. The Patient Preferences for Patient Participation (4Ps) is a new healthcare practice and research tool, comprising patients' preferences as well as experiences. The 4Ps employs 12 items for the patient to conceptualise patient participation. The aim of this paper is to describe how the two perspectives of patient participation, namely preferences and experiences, can be combined to visualise and report preference-based patient participation.MethodsWith four response alternatives in each section, the 4Ps offers sixteen possible combinations of degree of match per item. Theoretical and clinical principles fostered a tentative order of six ranks and three levels of preference-based patient participation. To test the standard, statistical analyses for ordinal data were performed, using data from a randomised controlled trial evaluating an intervention aiming to improve patient participation. Further, structures for visualising the preference-based patient participation of individuals and groups were suggested.ResultsData from the 4Ps demonstrated the individuals' preference-based patient participation, indicating either a match or a mismatch for each item. Mismatches represented either the experience of participation surpassing the patient's preferences, or the patient's preferences for patient participation not being established. At group level, the suggested approach for visualising and reporting the 4Ps demonstrated that the intervention group had a significantly higher proportion of sufficient preference-based patient participation for certain items than the control group. These results had not been identified earlier, when using the preferences and experiences of patient participation as separate measures.ConclusionsWays to easily acquaint stakeholders with patients' preferences for patient participation are needed, in order for healthcare staff to better use resources to match the basic requirements of individuals and groups. While the 4Ps can guide professionals to patient participation as framed in legislations, concept analyses and by patients, a visualisation of the results is needed to capture preference-based patient participation. The proposed route to representing degree of match in preferences and experiences may also be relevant to other dimensions of quality of healthcare.

We elicit time and risk preferences for kidney transplantation from the entire population of patients of the largest Italian transplant centre using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). We measure patients' willingness-to-wait (WTW) for receiving a kidney with one-year longer expected graft survival, or a low risk of complication. Using a mixed logit in WTW-space model, we find heterogeneity in patients' preferences. Our model allows WTW to vary with patients' age and duration of dialysis. The results suggest that WTW correlates with age and duration of dialysis, and that accounting for patients' preferences in the design of kidney allocation protocols could increase their welfare. The implication for transplant practice is that eliciting patients' preferences could help in the allocation of "non-ideal" kidneys.

Korea is in a unique condition to observe whether patients, when equal access to the levels of health care facilities is guaranteed by the support of the national health insurance, choose the appropriate levels of health care facilities. This study was performed to investigate the primary care patients&rsquo ; preference for hospitals over clinics under no restriction for their choice. We used the 2011 National Inpatient Sample database of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in Korea. A primary care patient was defined as a patient who visited as an outpatient in health care facilities with one of the 52 minor conditions defined by the Korean government. We found that approximately 15% of outpatient visits of the patients who were eligible for primary care in Korea happened in hospitals. In terms of cost, the outpatient visits in hospitals accounted for about 29% of total cost of outpatient visits. This arbitrary access to hospitals can lead to an inefficient use of health care resources. In order to ensure that health care facilities are stratified in terms of access as well as size and function, interventions to distribute patients to the appropriate level of care are required.

Korea is in a unique condition to observe whether patients, when equal access to the levels of health care facilities is guaranteed by the support of the national health insurance, choose the appropriate levels of health care facilities. This study was performed to investigate the primary care patients' preference for hospitals over clinics under no restriction for their choice. We used the 2011 National Inpatient Sample database of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in Korea. A primary care patient was defined as a patient who visited as an outpatient in health care facilities with one of the 52 minor conditions defined by the Korean government. We found that approximately 15% of outpatient visits of the patients who were eligible for primary care in Korea happened in hospitals. In terms of cost, the outpatient visits in hospitals accounted for about 29% of total cost of outpatient visits. This arbitrary access to hospitals can lead to an inefficient use of health care resources. In order to ensure that health care facilities are stratified in terms of access as well as size and function, interventions to distribute patients to the appropriate level of care are required.

Patients who seek treatment in hospitals have a unique conditions that should be considered in facility design. Facilities that are not designed according to the patient's needs and preferences give rise to the phenomenon of discomfort in the process of treatment at the hospital. Interior is one aspect of the built environment that plays a role in patient preferences. This study aims to examine patient preferences in hospital ward interiors to create a comprehensive understanding of patient preferences for a hospital ward. The study conducted by literature studies and through participants validation questionnaire from Indonesia. The results of the study show patients' preferences for interiors that can accommodate the comfort, security, safety, and social needs of patients during inpatient treatment. Preference for interior aspects related to natural elements is also often found in the research results.

The authors use a statewide survey to examine care seeking behavior in the emergency department (ED). Most patients who go to the ED (69.3%) do so mainly for conditions they believe are urgent. Time before seeking ED care is highly variable from immediately (28.7%) to more than 1 week (7.0%) and is only weakly related to the perceived urgency of medical condition. Healthier individuals initiate ED care more rapidly than sicker patients. In retrospect, 80.4% of patients would go to the same ED if they had the same medical episode but this percentage falls substantially with increased ED waiting time. Subject to some limitations uncovered in model specification tests, the study highlights several correlates of ED care seeking behavior that may be useful for designing strategies to divert some patients away from the ED. It also raises larger questions, however, about whether diversion is optimal from patient and health system perspectives.