• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

自适应联合分析作为个体偏好评估工具:通过互联网的可行性和偏好的可靠性。

Adaptive Conjoint Analysis as individual preference assessment tool: feasibility through the internet and reliability of preferences.

机构信息

Department of Medical Decision Making, University Medical Center Leiden, 2300 RCLeiden, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Feb;78(2):224-33. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.020. Epub 2009 Jul 5.

DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.020
PMID:19581069
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Patient values are not routinely assessed in clinical practice. Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA) is increasingly applied in studies assessing treatment preferences, and could provide a means to routinely assess individual patients' treatment preferences.

METHODS

An ACA-questionnaire was administered three times (7-10 days apart) to 98 long-term rectal cancer survivors either on a portable computer or through internet, to assess whether (a) responses differ according to administration mode, (b) relative importances of rectal cancer treatment outcomes (survival, local control, incontinence, sexual problems) consolidate over time, (c) ACA-outcomes are sufficiently reliable (ICC) for use in individual decision-making. We also evaluated patients' acceptance of ACA.

RESULTS

Mode did not affect ACA-completion or evaluation. Importance scores did not consolidate over time. ICCs were poor for sexual problems and fair for the other outcomes, and were at least equal or higher from first to second retest. Most participants valued completing the ACA-questionnaire and learning their results.

CONCLUSION

Values did not show consolidation over time. ACA-derived preferences should not determine which treatment patients should choose.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings extend ACA-validation studies to the health care setting and suggest that ACA-questionnaires might be appreciated as adjuncts to treatment decision-making in newly diagnosed patients.

摘要

目的

患者价值观在临床实践中通常未得到评估。适应性联合分析(ACA)越来越多地应用于评估治疗偏好的研究中,它可能提供一种常规评估个体患者治疗偏好的方法。

方法

我们通过便携式计算机或互联网三次(相隔 7-10 天)向 98 名长期直肠癌幸存者发放 ACA 问卷,以评估(a)不同的管理模式是否会影响响应,(b)直肠癌治疗结果(生存、局部控制、失禁、性功能障碍)的相对重要性是否随时间推移而巩固,(c)ACA 结果是否足够可靠(ICC),可用于个体决策。我们还评估了患者对 ACA 的接受程度。

结果

管理模式不会影响 ACA 的完成或评估。重要性评分不会随时间推移而巩固。对于性功能障碍,ICC 较差,对于其他结果,ICC 较好,且从第一次到第二次复测的 ICC 至少相等或更高。大多数参与者重视完成 ACA 问卷并了解其结果。

结论

价值观并未随时间推移而巩固。ACA 得出的偏好不应决定患者应选择哪种治疗方法。

实践意义

这些发现将 ACA 验证研究扩展到医疗保健环境,并表明 ACA 问卷可能作为新诊断患者治疗决策的辅助工具。

相似文献

1
Adaptive Conjoint Analysis as individual preference assessment tool: feasibility through the internet and reliability of preferences.自适应联合分析作为个体偏好评估工具:通过互联网的可行性和偏好的可靠性。
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Feb;78(2):224-33. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.05.020. Epub 2009 Jul 5.
2
An approach to measuring the quality of breast cancer decisions.一种衡量乳腺癌决策质量的方法。
Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Feb;65(2):261-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.08.007. Epub 2006 Oct 4.
3
The effects of a shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.共同决策干预对抑郁症初级护理的影响:一项整群随机对照试验。
Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Aug;67(3):324-32. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.023. Epub 2007 May 16.
4
Preferences for outcomes of treatment for rectal cancer: patient and clinician utilities and their application in an interactive computer-based decision aid.直肠癌治疗结局偏好:患者和临床医生的效用及其在交互式计算机决策辅助中的应用。
Dis Colon Rectum. 2009 Dec;52(12):1994-2002. doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181c001b9.
5
Do patients' communication behaviors provide insight into their preferences for participation in decision making?患者的沟通行为能否为了解他们参与决策的偏好提供线索?
Med Decis Making. 2008 May-Jun;28(3):385-93. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07312712. Epub 2008 May 13.
6
Preferences for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure: symptoms versus survival.心力衰竭患者对治疗结果的偏好:症状与生存
J Card Fail. 2000 Sep;6(3):225-32. doi: 10.1054/jcaf.2000.9503.
7
Veterans' decision-making preferences and perceived involvement in care for chronic heart failure.退伍军人对慢性心力衰竭护理的决策偏好及感知参与度
Heart Lung. 2008 Nov-Dec;37(6):440-8. doi: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2008.02.003. Epub 2008 Sep 30.
8
Preferences for involvement in treatment decision-making generally and in hormone replacement and urinary incontinence treatment decision-making specifically.总体上对参与治疗决策的偏好,特别是在激素替代和尿失禁治疗决策方面的偏好。
Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Nov;68(3):243-51. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.06.009. Epub 2007 Sep 27.
9
Exploring the black box of a decision aid: what information do patients select from an interactive Cd-Rom on treatment options in breast cancer?探索决策辅助工具的黑匣子:患者从关于乳腺癌治疗选择的交互式光盘中选择了哪些信息?
Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Jan;65(1):122-30. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.06.022. Epub 2006 Sep 1.
10
Patients' preferences for receiving clinical information and participating in decision-making in Iran.伊朗患者对接收临床信息及参与决策的偏好。
J Med Ethics. 2008 May;34(5):348-52. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.021873.

引用本文的文献

1
Embedding a Choice Experiment in an Online Decision Aid or Tool: Scoping Review.将选择实验嵌入在线决策辅助工具或手段:范围综述
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Mar 21;27:e59209. doi: 10.2196/59209.
2
The Role of Web-Based Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Technology in Eliciting Patients' Preferences for Osteoarthritis Treatment.基于网络的自适应选择式联合分析技术在诱发关节炎治疗偏好中的作用。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Feb 14;20(4):3364. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20043364.
3
Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review.
肿瘤学中患者对治疗结果的偏好,重点关注老年患者——一项系统综述。
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Feb 23;14(5):1147. doi: 10.3390/cancers14051147.
4
Clarifying Values: An Updated and Expanded Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.澄清价值观:一项更新和扩展的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):801-820. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211037946.
5
Comparing internet and face-to-face surveys as methods for eliciting preferences for social care-related quality of life: evidence from England using the ASCOT service user measure.比较互联网调查和面对面调查作为 eliciting 社会关怀相关生活质量偏好的方法:来自英格兰的使用 ASCOT 服务用户测量的证据。
Qual Life Res. 2019 Aug;28(8):2207-2220. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02172-2. Epub 2019 Apr 3.
6
Individual Value Clarification Methods Based on Conjoint Analysis: A Systematic Review of Common Practice in Task Design, Statistical Analysis, and Presentation of Results.基于联合分析的个体价值澄清方法:任务设计、统计分析和结果呈现中常见实践的系统评价。
Med Decis Making. 2018 Aug;38(6):746-755. doi: 10.1177/0272989X18765185. Epub 2018 Mar 29.
7
Understanding Preferences for Treatment After Hypothetical First-Time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: Surveying an Online Panel Utilizing a Novel Shared Decision-Making Tool.了解首次假设性前肩关节脱位后的治疗偏好:利用一种新型共享决策工具对在线小组进行调查
Orthop J Sports Med. 2017 Mar 20;5(3):2325967117695788. doi: 10.1177/2325967117695788. eCollection 2017 Mar.
8
Older Cancer Patients' User Experiences With Web-Based Health Information Tools: A Think-Aloud Study.老年癌症患者对基于网络的健康信息工具的使用体验:一项出声思维研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jul 25;18(7):e208. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5618.
9
A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.关于在医疗保健背景下对结果进行优先级排序方法的描述性综述。
Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):1873-93. doi: 10.1111/hex.12256. Epub 2014 Aug 25.
10
Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.健康经济学中的离散选择实验:文献综述
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Sep;32(9):883-902. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x.