Review
Measuring patient-centered care: An updated systematic review of how studies define and report concordance between patients’ preferences and medical treatments

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.03.012Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The paper updates a prior systematic review of the topic.

  • The review examines recent advances in measuring value concordance.

  • There is increased reporting of value concordance in the literature.

  • Large differences still exist in the way the measure is defined and calculated.

  • Further attention is needed to establish standards for measurement and reporting.

Abstract

Objective

The purpose was to examine recent advances in measuring value concordance and to highlight best practices.

Methods

The paper updates a prior systematic review. A systematic review of the literature from 2008 to 2012 identified articles that reported a relationship between patients’ preferences concerning health outcomes and/or medical treatments, and treatment (intended or actual). Relevant articles were independently abstracted by two reviewers.

Results

The search identified 3635 unique citations, the full text of 187 articles was examined, and 63 articles covering 61 studies were included, nearly a third more articles than identified in the original review. There were 72 different value concordance calculations, the majority of which were clearly reported with significance. More studies assessed knowledge, reported on the association between value concordance and knowledge, and included a decision aid compared to those in the original review.

Conclusion

There is increased reporting of value concordance in the literature. However, large differences exist in the way that the measure is defined and calculated. The variability makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the quality of care across studies.

Practice implications

Value concordance is a critical component of patient-centered care, and further attention is needed to establish standards for measurement and reporting.

Introduction

Patient-centered care is defined as “healthcare that establishes a partnership among practitioners, patients, and their families (when appropriate) to ensure that decisions reflect patients’ wants, needs and preferences and that patients have the education and support they need to make decisions and participate in their own care” [1]. In 2001 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified patient-centered care as one of its six aims in its landmark Crossing the Quality Chasm report [1]. There have been global initiatives to assist patients and their providers in the decision-making process; among them the establishment of a Health Evidence Network (HEN) by the World Health Organization (WHO)/Europe [2], and the formation of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration (IPDAS) [3]. However, while support has grown for the concept of patient-centered care, the ability to provide patient-centered care and to measure the extent to which it occurs has been traditionally hampered by gaps in the health care system [4], [5].

One method of assessing patient-centered care is through measuring decision quality, which has been defined as the extent to which treatments reflect the considered preferences of well-informed patients and are implemented [6], [7]. A key part of decision quality is that patients are well informed about the evidence on the clinically appropriate options and outcomes [8]. Another core element of decision quality is concerned with value concordance, or how well the treatment aligns with the patient's goals and preferences [9].

In 2008, two of the authors [EO and KS] conducted a systematic review to assess approaches used to calculate value concordance [6]. Specifically, value concordance was defined as the association between patients’ preferences concerning health outcomes and/or medical treatments, and treatment intention or treatment undergone [6]. Forty-nine relevant articles were identified, and these revealed a diverse picture in terms of how investigators conceptualized and measured the concordance between patients’ preferences and their treatment [6]. The variation in what and how to measure and report concordance limited the ability to generalize results and led to some recommendations regarding how “preferences” should be defined, how “choices” (treatment) should be defined, and appropriate methods for calculating the association between these concepts [6].

Since 2008, a number of initiatives have been undertaken to promote patient-centered care and there has been a growing emphasis on the ability to measure decision quality. In the U.S., the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act recently established a new Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) and provided a significant funding stream for the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Both of these initiatives include shared decision-making (SDM) among their key areas of focus [10]. In the U.K., SDM and the use of patient decision aids have been emphasized in government health policy [11], [12] and in legislation [13]. SDM is a collaborative process between patients and their providers whereby health care decisions are made together using both the best available scientific evidence and incorporation of patient preferences [14].

With a greater shift toward patient-centered care and the emergence of delivery system redesign initiatives, it is reasonable to reevaluate whether such efforts have led to care that reflects patients’ desires, and whether investigators have adopted consistent approaches to measure the extent to which this is happening. An update of the prior systematic review was therefore undertaken to evaluate the state of measurement of concordance, or the association between patients’ preferences and treatments.

Section snippets

Methods

The methods closely match what was done in the prior systematic review [6] and follow the guidelines promoted by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRIMSA) [15]. MEDLINE and PsychINFO databases were searched with key terms such as: preferences, preference measures, attitude measures, or utility theory; and prediction, estimation, or predictability measurement; and decision making, decision theory, choice behavior, decision trees, decision support systems, or

Summary of included articles

The results of the search strategy are shown in Fig. 1. A total of 3635 articles were identified with the defined search criteria. These abstracts were reviewed and 187 were selected for a full-text review. One hundred twenty-four articles were excluded during full-text review for the following reasons: duplicate studies (n = 3), not medical or no medical decision being made (n = 25), or no data on one or more of the following: values, choices, or value concordance (n = 96). Of these 96 articles, 84

Discussion

The original systematic review, which spanned 40 years from 1967 through 2007, identified forty-nine relevant articles. This update, which assessed relevant articles from 2008 through 2012, a period of 5 years, identified nearly a third more articles (n = 63). Given the recent emphasis on patient-centered care and the rise of health care delivery system redesign initiatives, it is encouraging that more studies are reporting on the relationship between patients’ preferences and choices. Here, we

References (82)

  • C.N. Lee et al.

    Decision making about surgery for early-stage breast cancer

    J Am Coll Surg

    (2012)
  • E. Mathieu et al.

    Helping women make choices about mammography screening: an online randomized trial of a decision aid for 40-year-old women

    Patient Educ Couns

    (2010)
  • P. Menard et al.

    Evaluation of a natural health product decision aid: a tool for middle aged women considering menopausal symptom relief

    Maturitas

    (2010)
  • S. Pautex et al.

    Preferences of elderly cancer patients in their advance directives

    Crit Rev Oncol Hematol

    (2010)
  • A.A. Powell et al.

    Colorectal cancer screening mode preferences among US veterans

    Prev Med

    (2009)
  • K.B. Slot et al.

    Thrombolytic treatment for stroke: patient preferences for treatment, information, and involvement

    J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis

    (2009)
  • S. Michie et al.

    The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study

    Patient Educ Couns

    (2002)
  • Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality Health Care in America

    Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century

    (2001)
  • World Health Organization

    Health Evidence Network

    (2015)
  • International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration

    (2014)
  • D. Shaller

    Patient-centered care: what does it take: Picker Institute and Commonwealth Fund

    (2007)
  • US Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

    2012 National Healthcare Quality Report

    (2012)
  • K. Sepucha et al.

    Measuring decision quality: where we stand today

    (2013)
  • The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice

    Informed Choice

    (2012)
  • R. Wexler

    Quality matters. Q&A: informing medical decisions. The Commonwealth Fund

    (2012)
  • Informed Medical Decisions Foundation

    Affordable Care Act

    (2013)
  • Department of Health

    Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS, London

    (2010)
  • NHS

    Shared decision making

    (2012)
  • Parliament UK

    Health and Social Care Act

    (2012)
  • Informed Medical Decisions Foundation

    What is shared decision-making?

    (2013)
  • D. Moher et al.

    Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

    Brit Med J

    (2009)
  • J.D. Allen et al.

    Do men make informed decisions about prostate cancer screening? Baseline results from the “take the wheel” trial

    Med Decis Making

    (2011)
  • D.E. Arterburn et al.

    Randomzied trial of a video-based patient decision aid for bariatric surgery

    Obesity (Silver Spring)

    (2011)
  • K.Y. Chang et al.

    Decision analysis for epidural labor analgesia with Multiattribute Utility (MAU) model

    Clin J Pain

    (2008)
  • K.H. Chu et al.

    Women's preference for cesarean delivery and differences between Taiwanese women undergoing different modes of delivery

    BMC Health Serv Res

    (2010)
  • R.M. Cox et al.

    Preference for one or two hearing AIDS among adult patients

    Ear Hear

    (2011)
  • C. Der-Martirosian et al.

    Predictors of treatment preference for mandibular fracture

    J Public Health Dent

    (2010)
  • Md. Dibonaventura et al.

    Do decision biases predict bad decisions? Omission bias, naturalness bias, and influenza vaccination

    Med Decis Making

    (2008)
  • S. DosReis et al.

    The meaning of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication and parents’ initiation and continuity of treatment for their child

    J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol

    (2009)
  • G.L. Edwards et al.

    The relationship between rejection sensitivity and compliant condom use

    Arch Sex Behav

    (2010)
  • L. Fraenkel et al.

    A pilot randomized controlled trial of a decision support tool to improve the quality of communication and decision-making in individuals with atrial fibrillation

    J Am Geriatr Soc

    (2012)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text