不孕症患者寻求医疗救助时做出治疗决策的驱动因素:系统综述。

IF 14.8 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Felicia von Estorff, Monique H Mochtar, Vicky Lehmann, Madelon van Wely
{"title":"不孕症患者寻求医疗救助时做出治疗决策的驱动因素:系统综述。","authors":"Felicia von Estorff, Monique H Mochtar, Vicky Lehmann, Madelon van Wely","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmae001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>ART differs in effectiveness, side-effects, administration, and costs. To improve the decision-making process, we need to understand what factors patients consider to be most important.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>We conducted this systematic review to assess which aspects of ART treatment (effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood) are most important in the decision-making of patients with an unfulfilled wish to have a child.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched studies indexed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL prior to November 2023. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), surveys, interviews, and conjoint analyses (CAs) about ART were included. Studies were included if they described two or more of the following attributes: effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood.Participants were men and women with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. From each DCE/CA study, we extracted the beta-coefficients and calculated the relative importance of treatment attributes or, in case of survey studies, extracted results. We assessed the risk of bias using the rating developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Attributes were classified into effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, genetic parenthood, and others.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>The search identified 938 studies of which 20 were included: 13 DCEs, three survey studies, three interview studies, and one conjoint analysis, with a total of 12 452 patients. Per study, 47-100% of the participants were women. Studies were assessed as having moderate to high risk of bias (critical: six studies, serious: four studies, moderate: nine studies, low: one study). The main limitation was the heterogeneity in the questionnaires and methodology utilized. Studies varied in the number and types of assessed attributes. Patients' treatment decision-making was mostly driven by effectiveness, followed by safety, burden, costs, and patient-centeredness. Effectiveness was rated as the first or second most important factor in 10 of the 12 DCE studies (83%) and the relative importance of effectiveness varied between 17% and 63%, with a median of 34% (moderate certainty of evidence). Of eight studies evaluating safety, five studies valued safety as the first or second most important factor (63%), and the relative importance ranged from 8% to 35% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Cost was rated as first or second most important in five of 10 studies, and the importance relative to the other attributes varied between 5% and 47% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Burden was rated as first or second by three of 10 studies (30%) and the relative importance varied between 1% and 43% (median 13%) (low certainty of evidence). Patient-centeredness was second most important in one of five studies (20%) and had a relative importance between 7% and 24% (median 14%) (low certainty of evidence). Results suggest that patients are prepared to trade-off some effectiveness for more safety, or less burden and patient-centeredness. When safety was evaluated, the safety of the child was considered more important than the mother's safety. Greater burden (cycle cancellations, number of injections, number of hospital visits, time) was more likely to be accepted by patients if they gained effectiveness, safety, or lower costs. Concerning patient-centeredness, information provision and physician attitude were considered most important, followed by involvement in decision-making, and treatment continuity by the same medical professional. Non-genetic parenthood did not have a clear impact on decision-making.</p><p><strong>Wider implications: </strong>The findings of this review can be used in future preference studies and can help healthcare professionals in guiding patients' decision-making and enable a more patient-centered approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":14.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11063545/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Driving factors in treatment decision-making of patients seeking medical assistance for infertility: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Felicia von Estorff, Monique H Mochtar, Vicky Lehmann, Madelon van Wely\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/humupd/dmae001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>ART differs in effectiveness, side-effects, administration, and costs. To improve the decision-making process, we need to understand what factors patients consider to be most important.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>We conducted this systematic review to assess which aspects of ART treatment (effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood) are most important in the decision-making of patients with an unfulfilled wish to have a child.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched studies indexed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL prior to November 2023. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), surveys, interviews, and conjoint analyses (CAs) about ART were included. Studies were included if they described two or more of the following attributes: effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood.Participants were men and women with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. From each DCE/CA study, we extracted the beta-coefficients and calculated the relative importance of treatment attributes or, in case of survey studies, extracted results. We assessed the risk of bias using the rating developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Attributes were classified into effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, genetic parenthood, and others.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>The search identified 938 studies of which 20 were included: 13 DCEs, three survey studies, three interview studies, and one conjoint analysis, with a total of 12 452 patients. Per study, 47-100% of the participants were women. Studies were assessed as having moderate to high risk of bias (critical: six studies, serious: four studies, moderate: nine studies, low: one study). The main limitation was the heterogeneity in the questionnaires and methodology utilized. Studies varied in the number and types of assessed attributes. Patients' treatment decision-making was mostly driven by effectiveness, followed by safety, burden, costs, and patient-centeredness. Effectiveness was rated as the first or second most important factor in 10 of the 12 DCE studies (83%) and the relative importance of effectiveness varied between 17% and 63%, with a median of 34% (moderate certainty of evidence). Of eight studies evaluating safety, five studies valued safety as the first or second most important factor (63%), and the relative importance ranged from 8% to 35% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Cost was rated as first or second most important in five of 10 studies, and the importance relative to the other attributes varied between 5% and 47% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Burden was rated as first or second by three of 10 studies (30%) and the relative importance varied between 1% and 43% (median 13%) (low certainty of evidence). Patient-centeredness was second most important in one of five studies (20%) and had a relative importance between 7% and 24% (median 14%) (low certainty of evidence). Results suggest that patients are prepared to trade-off some effectiveness for more safety, or less burden and patient-centeredness. When safety was evaluated, the safety of the child was considered more important than the mother's safety. Greater burden (cycle cancellations, number of injections, number of hospital visits, time) was more likely to be accepted by patients if they gained effectiveness, safety, or lower costs. Concerning patient-centeredness, information provision and physician attitude were considered most important, followed by involvement in decision-making, and treatment continuity by the same medical professional. Non-genetic parenthood did not have a clear impact on decision-making.</p><p><strong>Wider implications: </strong>The findings of this review can be used in future preference studies and can help healthcare professionals in guiding patients' decision-making and enable a more patient-centered approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55045,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Reproduction Update\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":14.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11063545/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Reproduction Update\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmae001\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Reproduction Update","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmae001","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:抗逆转录病毒疗法在效果、副作用、管理和成本方面各不相同。为了改善决策过程,我们需要了解患者认为哪些因素最重要:我们进行了这项系统性综述,以评估 ART 治疗的哪些方面(有效性、安全性、负担、成本、以患者为中心和遗传亲子关系)对未实现生育愿望的患者的决策最为重要:我们检索了 2023 年 11 月之前在 Embase、PubMed、PsycINFO 和 CINAHL 中收录的研究。其中包括关于抗逆转录病毒疗法的离散选择实验(DCE)、调查、访谈和联合分析(CA)。如果研究描述了以下两个或两个以上的属性:有效性、安全性、负担、成本、以患者为中心和遗传亲子关系,则被纳入研究。我们从每项 DCE/CA 研究中提取了 beta 系数,并计算了治疗属性的相对重要性,如果是调查研究,则提取了结果。我们使用 "建议评估、开发和评价分级 "工作组制定的分级标准对偏倚风险进行了评估。属性分为有效性、安全性、负担、成本、以患者为中心、遗传亲子关系及其他:搜索共发现 938 项研究,其中 20 项被纳入:13 项 DCE、3 项调查研究、3 项访谈研究和 1 项联合分析,共涉及 12 452 名患者。每项研究中,47%-100% 的参与者为女性。研究被评估为存在中度至高度偏倚风险(严重:6 项研究;严重:4 项研究;中度:9 项研究;低度:1 项研究)。主要的局限性在于所使用的问卷和方法存在异质性。研究在评估属性的数量和类型方面存在差异。患者的治疗决策主要受有效性驱动,其次是安全性、负担、成本和以患者为中心。在 12 项 DCE 研究中,有 10 项(83%)将疗效评为第一或第二重要因素,疗效的相对重要性介于 17% 与 63% 之间,中位数为 34%(中度证据确定性)。在 8 项评估安全性的研究中,5 项研究将安全性列为第一或第二重要因素(63%),相对重要性介于 8% 与 35% 之间(中位数为 23%)(中度证据确定性)。在 10 项研究中,有 5 项将成本评为第一或第二重要因素,相对于其他属性的重要性介于 5% 与 47% 之间(中位数为 23%)(中等证据确定性)。在 10 项研究中,有 3 项(30%)将负担评为第一或第二重要,其相对重要性介于 1% 与 43% 之间(中位数为 13%)(证据确定性较低)。五项研究中有一项(20%)将 "以病人为中心 "评为第二重要,其相对重要性介于 7% 与 24% 之间(中位数为 14%)(证据确定性低)。研究结果表明,患者愿意用一些有效性来换取更多的安全性,或减轻负担和以患者为中心。在对安全性进行评估时,患儿的安全被认为比母亲的安全更重要。如果能获得有效性、安全性或更低的成本,患者更有可能接受更大的负担(周期取消、注射次数、医院就诊次数、时间)。在以病人为中心方面,提供信息和医生态度被认为是最重要的,其次是参与决策和由同一医疗专业人员继续治疗。非遗传亲子关系对决策的影响并不明显:本综述的研究结果可用于未来的偏好研究,并可帮助医疗专业人员指导患者做出决策,从而实现更加以患者为中心的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Driving factors in treatment decision-making of patients seeking medical assistance for infertility: a systematic review.

Background: ART differs in effectiveness, side-effects, administration, and costs. To improve the decision-making process, we need to understand what factors patients consider to be most important.

Objective and rationale: We conducted this systematic review to assess which aspects of ART treatment (effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood) are most important in the decision-making of patients with an unfulfilled wish to have a child.

Search methods: We searched studies indexed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL prior to November 2023. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), surveys, interviews, and conjoint analyses (CAs) about ART were included. Studies were included if they described two or more of the following attributes: effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood.Participants were men and women with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. From each DCE/CA study, we extracted the beta-coefficients and calculated the relative importance of treatment attributes or, in case of survey studies, extracted results. We assessed the risk of bias using the rating developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Attributes were classified into effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, genetic parenthood, and others.

Outcomes: The search identified 938 studies of which 20 were included: 13 DCEs, three survey studies, three interview studies, and one conjoint analysis, with a total of 12 452 patients. Per study, 47-100% of the participants were women. Studies were assessed as having moderate to high risk of bias (critical: six studies, serious: four studies, moderate: nine studies, low: one study). The main limitation was the heterogeneity in the questionnaires and methodology utilized. Studies varied in the number and types of assessed attributes. Patients' treatment decision-making was mostly driven by effectiveness, followed by safety, burden, costs, and patient-centeredness. Effectiveness was rated as the first or second most important factor in 10 of the 12 DCE studies (83%) and the relative importance of effectiveness varied between 17% and 63%, with a median of 34% (moderate certainty of evidence). Of eight studies evaluating safety, five studies valued safety as the first or second most important factor (63%), and the relative importance ranged from 8% to 35% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Cost was rated as first or second most important in five of 10 studies, and the importance relative to the other attributes varied between 5% and 47% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Burden was rated as first or second by three of 10 studies (30%) and the relative importance varied between 1% and 43% (median 13%) (low certainty of evidence). Patient-centeredness was second most important in one of five studies (20%) and had a relative importance between 7% and 24% (median 14%) (low certainty of evidence). Results suggest that patients are prepared to trade-off some effectiveness for more safety, or less burden and patient-centeredness. When safety was evaluated, the safety of the child was considered more important than the mother's safety. Greater burden (cycle cancellations, number of injections, number of hospital visits, time) was more likely to be accepted by patients if they gained effectiveness, safety, or lower costs. Concerning patient-centeredness, information provision and physician attitude were considered most important, followed by involvement in decision-making, and treatment continuity by the same medical professional. Non-genetic parenthood did not have a clear impact on decision-making.

Wider implications: The findings of this review can be used in future preference studies and can help healthcare professionals in guiding patients' decision-making and enable a more patient-centered approach.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human Reproduction Update
Human Reproduction Update 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
28.80
自引率
1.50%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Human Reproduction Update is the leading journal in its field, boasting a Journal Impact FactorTM of 13.3 and ranked first in Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (Source: Journal Citation ReportsTM from Clarivate, 2023). It specializes in publishing comprehensive and systematic review articles covering various aspects of human reproductive physiology and medicine. The journal prioritizes basic, transitional, and clinical topics related to reproduction, encompassing areas such as andrology, embryology, infertility, gynaecology, pregnancy, reproductive endocrinology, reproductive epidemiology, reproductive genetics, reproductive immunology, and reproductive oncology. Human Reproduction Update is published on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), maintaining the highest scientific and editorial standards.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信