Methods to perform systematic reviews of patient preferences: a literature survey

Neurobiological Correlates of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis: Remodelling and Plasticity of Nociceptive and Autonomic Innervations in Synovial Joints

Swelling, stiffness, and pain in synovial joints are primary hallmarks of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Hyperactivity of nociceptors and excessive release of inflammatory factors and pain mediators play a crucial role, with emerging data suggesting extensive remodelling and plasticity of joint innervations. Herein, we review structural, functional, and molecular alterations in sensory and autonomic axons wiring arthritic joints and revisit mechanisms implicated in the sensitization of nociceptors, leading to chronic pain. Sprouting and reorganization of sensory and autonomic fibers with the invasion of ectopic branches into surrounding inflamed tissues are associated with the upregulation of pain markers. These changes are frequently complemented by a phenotypic switch of sensory and autonomic profiles and activation of silent axons, inferring homeostatic adjustments and reprogramming of innervations. Identifying critical molecular players and neurobiological mechanisms underpinning the rewiring and sensitization of joints is likely to elucidate causatives of neuroinflammation and chronic pain, assisting in finding new therapeutic targets and opportunities for interventions.

Patients' perspectives of epilepsy care by specialists and generalists: qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

In the UK, epilepsy care involves both specialists (for example, neurologists) and generalists (for example, GPs). Policymakers typically consider that epilepsy care should be integrated and involve both specialists and generalists. However, few understand exactly how patients view and compare specialist and generalist care.

AIM

To explore patient perspectives of specialist care and generalist care for epilepsy in a qualitative evidence synthesis.

DESIGN & SETTING

A systematic review of patient perspectives of epilepsy care. A qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted using an identified framework.

METHOD

Systematic searches in five databases retrieved 17 eligible studies. Data were extracted and synthesised using framework analysis informed by the 'United Model of Generalism'.

RESULTS

The following three themes were developed: 'Epilepsy care can be burdensome' (for example, through care fragmentation); 'Patients' experiences of care is that care is not always accessible' (for example, lack of a continuum between standardised and interpretive care); and 'How care could change for people with epilepsy' (for example, clinicians currently have insufficient time to deviate from protocol-driven care to address psychosocial needs). People with epilepsy frequently observe that generalists lack expertise in epilepsy management.

CONCLUSION

This synthesis of patient experiences indicates recommendations should focus on improving communication and integration between specialists and generalists for epilepsy care. Patient experiences indicate specialist care risks being burdensome and generalist knowledge insufficient, requiring enhanced primary care clinician skills and improved awareness of patient psychosocial needs. The findings argue in favour of healthcare policies, materials, and tools to continually support patient perspectives in developing epilepsy services.

How Do Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Value the Importance of Outcomes? An Overview of Reviews

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess how patients value the importance of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) related outcomes.

METHODS

Overview of systematic reviews (SRs) reporting patients' utilities or disutilities for T2DM outcomes. We searched 3 databases from inception until June 2021. Study selection and data extraction were conducted in pairs. We evaluated the quality of SRs with the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist, and the overlap with the corrected covered area. We estimated descriptive statistics, and, when possible, conducted metanalysis.

RESULTS

We identified 11 SRs, including 119 studies and 70 outcomes. Most reviews were high-quality SRs. The outcomes with the lowest utilities were hypoglycemia with very severe symptoms (acute complications), stroke (macrovascular complications), diabetic peripheral neuropathy with severe pain (microvascular complications), extreme obesity (comorbidities), and insulin only or combined (management of diabetes). Good/excellent glucose control and noninsulin injectable showed higher values than T2DM without complications. The outcomes with the highest disutilities were amputation, depression, major hypoglycemia, stroke, and management using only insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide standardized, reliable utility values (or associated disutilities) for T2DM, acute, microvascular and macrovascular complications, related comorbidities and treatments that may support judgments when making clinical recommendations, designing decision support tools, and developing interventions and economic analysis.

A systematic review to identify the use of stated preference research in the field of older adult care

In the design of long-term care systems, preferences can serve as an essential indication to better tailor services to the needs, wishes and expectations of its consumers. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and synthesize available evidence on long-term care preferences that have been elicited by quantitative stated-preference methods. The databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched for the period 2000 to 2020 with an extensive set of search terms. Two independent researchers judged the eligibility of studies. The final number of included studies was 66, conducted in 19 different countries. Studies were systematized according to their content focus as well as the survey method used. Irrespective of the heterogeneity of studies with respect to research focus, study population, sample size and study design, some consistent findings emerged. When presented with a set of long-term care options, the majority of study participants preferred to "age in place" and make use of informal or home-based care. With increasing severity of physical and cognitive impairments, preferences shifted toward the exclusive use of formal care. Next to the severity of care needs, the influence on preferences of a range of other independent variables such as income, family status and education were tested; however, none showed consistent effects across all studies. The inclusion of choice-based elicitation techniques provides an impression of how studies operationalized long-term care and measured preferences. Future research should investigate how preferences might change over time and generations as well as people's willingness and realistic capabilities of providing care.

Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are being increasingly conducted. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and describe the methodologies that have been used to summarize results across DCEs.

METHODS

We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 18, 2021, to identify English-language systematic reviews of patient preferences that included at least two DCEs and extracted data on attribute importance. The methods used to summarize results across DCEs were classified into narrative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative (meta-analytic) approaches and compared. Approaches to characterize the extent of preference heterogeneity were also described.

RESULTS

From 7362 unique records, we identified 54 eligible reviews from 2010 to Mar 2021, across a broad range of health conditions. Most (83%) used a narrative approach to summarize findings of DCEs, often citing differences in studies as the reason for not formally pooling findings. Semi-quantitative approaches included summarizing the frequency of the most important attributes, the frequency of attribute statistical significance, or tabulated comparisons of attribute importance for each pair of attributes. One review conducted a meta-analysis using the maximum acceptable risk. While reviews often commented on the heterogeneity of patient preferences, few (6%) addressed this systematically across studies.

CONCLUSION

While not commonly used, several semi-quantitative and one quantitative approach for synthesizing results of DCEs were identified, which may be useful for generating summary estimates across DCEs when appropriate. Further work is needed to assess the validity and usefulness of these approaches.

Self-management preferences in patients with mild cognitive impairment: A qualitative study

Purpose

Patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) require self-management, yet current self-management compliance is low. Taking patients’ preferences into account can improve the self-management situation. The purpose of this study is to look into MCI patients’ preferences for self-management in China.

Methods

A qualitative research was conducted using semi-structured in-depth interviews with 21 patients recently diagnosed with MCI who were chosen by purposive sampling. These interviews were analyzed through thematic analysis and identified emerging themes.

Results

Five themes of self-management preference were identified: (1) Preference for acquiring disease knowledge; (2) Preference for participating in drug therapy; (3) Preference for participating in exercise; (4) Preference for applying memory compensation strategy; (5) Preferences for emotional expression and response.

Conclusion

Our study identified the specific preferences of MCI patients in China for the main self-management items. The findings are valuable insights for knowing MCI patients’ self-management content and preferences and provide better guidance for health practitioners to improve self-management compliance.

Building Infrastructure to Exploit Evidence from Patient Preference Information (PPI) Studies: A Conceptual Blueprint

Patients are the most important actors in clinical research. Therefore, patient preference information (PPI) could support the decision-making process, being indisputable for research value, quality, and integrity. However, there is a lack of clear guidance or consensus on the search for preference studies. In this blueprint, an openly available and regularly updated patient preference management system for an integrated database (PPMSDB) that contains the minimal set of data sufficient to provide detailed information for each study (the so-called evidence tables in systematic reviews) and a high-level overview of the findings of a review (summary tables) is described. These tables could help determine which studies, if any, are eligible for quantitative synthesis. Finally, a web platform would provide a graphical and user-friendly interface. On the other hand, a set of APIs (application programming interfaces) would also be developed and provided. The PPMSDB, aims to collect preference measures, characteristics, and meta-data, and allow researchers to obtain a quick overview of a research field, use the latest evidence, and identify research gaps. In conjunction with proper statistical analysis of quantitative preference measures, these aspects can facilitate formal evidence-based decisions and adequate consideration when conducting a structured decision-making process. Our objective is to outline the conceptual infrastructure necessary to build and maintain a successful network that can monitor the currentness and validity of evidence.

Patient-based benefit-risk assessment of medicines: development, refinement, and validation of a content search strategy to retrieve relevant studies

Introduction:

Poor indexing and inconsistent use of terms and keywords may prevent efficient retrieval of studies on the patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines. We aimed to develop and validate an objectively derived content search strategy containing generic search terms that can be adapted for any search for evidence on patient-based BRA of medicines for any therapeutic area.

Methods:

We used a robust multistep process to develop and validate the content search strategy: (1) we developed a bank of search terms derived from screening studies on patient-based BRA of medicines in various therapeutic areas, (2) we refined the proposed content search strategy through an iterative process of testing sensitivity and precision of search terms, and (3) we validated the final search strategy in PubMed by firstly using multiple sclerosis as a case condition and secondly computing its relative performance versus a published systematic review on patient-based BRA of medicines in rheumatoid arthritis.

Results:

We conceptualized a final search strategy to retrieve studies on patient-based BRA containing generic search terms grouped into two domains, namely the patient and the BRA of medicines (sensitivity 84%, specificity 99.4%, precision 20.7%). The relative performance of the content search strategy was 85.7% compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We also developed a more extended filter, with a relative performance of 93.3% when compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in lung cancer.

Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients' preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience.

RESULTS

A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient's preference.

CONCLUSION

Factors important for patients' BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients' perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients' BRA in every disease.

Evaluating the Consistency of Patient Preference Estimates: Systematic Variation in Survival-Adverse Event Trade-Offs in Patients with Cancer or Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

The increased use of patient preference data in healthcare decision making has raised concerns about the reliability and consistency of the estimates generated by patient preference studies. However, literature reviews to assess the consistency of preferences are confounded by heterogeneity in study designs.

METHODS

This paper adopted a novel approach to evaluating preference consistency: comparing estimates of a single trade-off-the marginal rate of substitution (MRS) between survival improvements and risks of adverse events-across multiple patient groups and using meta-regression to assess whether MRS varied systematically between patients. A log-linear, random effects regression was run, weighted for the sample sizes of studies from which estimates were extracted.

RESULTS

Using studies identified in published reviews of patient preference data, 42 estimates of MRS were generated from the 12 studies. On average, patients obtained the same utility from a 2.3% reduction in the risk of an adverse event as from a 1-month increase in survival, with a range of 0.002-13.5%. The regression model had an R² of over 90% and suggests that MRS depended on patients' expected survival and the type of adverse event being traded.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that although preferences vary between patients, they may do so in systematic and predictable ways. Further, they do so in ways consistent with societal preferences and decision maker priorities toward end-of-life settings. Further work is required to replicate this result in other patient groups and to explore the consistency of preferences for other treatment attributes.

Patient Preference Studies for Advanced Prostate Cancer Treatment Along the Medical Product Life Cycle: Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Patient preference studies can inform decision-making across all stages of the medical product life cycle (MPLC). The treatment landscape for advanced prostate cancer (APC) treatment has substantially changed in recent years. However, the most patient-relevant aspects of APC treatment remain unclear. This systematic review of patient preference studies in APC aimed to summarize the evidence on patient preferences and patient-relevant aspects of APC treatments, and to evaluate the potential contribution of existing studies to decision-making within the respective stages of the MPLC.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies evaluating patient preferences related to APC treatment up to October 2020. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction and quality assessment in duplicate. We descriptively summarized the findings and analyzed the studies regarding their contribution within the MPLC using an analytical framework.

RESULTS

Seven quantitative preference studies were included. One study each was conducted in the marketing approval and the health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement stage, and five were conducted in the post-marketing stage of the MPLC. While almost all stated to inform clinical practice, the specific contributions to clinical decision-making remained unclear for almost all studies. Evaluated attributes related to benefits, harms, and other treatment-related aspects and their relative importance varied relevantly between studies. All studies were judged of high quality overall, but some methodological issues regarding sample selection and the definition of patient-relevant treatment attributes were identified.

CONCLUSION

The most patient-relevant aspects regarding the benefits and harms of APC treatment are not yet established, and it remains unclear which APC treatments are preferred by patients. Findings from this study highlight the importance of transparent reporting and discussion of study findings according to their aims and with respect to their stage within the MPLC. Future research may benefit from using the MPLC framework for analyzing or determining the aims and design of patient preference studies.

The Perspectives of Patients with Chronic Diseases and Their Caregivers on Self-Management Interventions: A Scoping Review of Reviews

BACKGROUND

Self-management (SM) interventions are supportive interventions systematically provided by healthcare professionals, peers, or laypersons to increase the skills and confidence of patients in their ability to manage chronic diseases. We had two objectives: (1) to summarise the preferences and experiences of patients and their caregivers (informal caregivers and healthcare professionals) with SM in four chronic diseases and (2) to identify and describe the relevant outcomes for SM interventions from these perspectives.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods scoping review of reviews. We searched three databases until December 2020 for quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods reviews exploring patients' and caregivers' preferences or experiences with SM in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and heart failure (HF). Quantitative data were narratively synthesised, and qualitative data followed a three-step descriptive thematic synthesis. Identified themes were categorised into outcomes or modifiable factors of SM interventions.

RESULTS

We included 148 reviews covering T2DM (n = 53 [35.8%]), obesity (n = 20 [13.5%]), COPD (n = 32 [21.6%]), HF (n = 38 [25.7%]), and those with more than one disease (n = 5 [3.4%]). We identified 12 main themes. Eight described the process of SM (disease progression, SM behaviours, social support, interaction with healthcare professionals, access to healthcare, costs for patients, culturally defined roles and perceptions, and health knowledge), and four described their experiences with SM interventions (the perceived benefit of the intervention, individualised care, sense of community with peers, and usability of equipment). Most themes and subthemes were categorised as outcomes of SM interventions.

CONCLUSION

The process of SM shaped the perspectives of patients and their caregivers on SM interventions. Their perspectives were influenced by the perceived benefit of the intervention, the sense of community with peers, the intervention's usability, and the level of individualised care. Our findings can inform the selection of patient-important outcomes, decision-making processes, including the formulation of recommendations, and the design and implementation of SM interventions.

Preferences of Cognitively Impaired Patients and Patients Living with Dementia: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Patient Preference Studies

BACKGROUND

Treatment decisions based on guidelines rather than patients' preferences determine adherence to and compliance with treatment, which, in turn, could improve health-related outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the stated treatment and care preferences of people with dementia (PwD).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to assess the stated preferences of PwD. The inclusion criterion was the use of quantitative methods to elicit stated preferences, enabling a ranking of preferences.

RESULTS

Eleven studies revealed preferences for diagnostics, treatment decisions, patient-related outcomes, care services, end-of-life care, leisure activities, and digital life story work. PwDs prefer accurate, pain-free, and comfortable diagnostic procedures without radioactive markers as well as being accompanied by a caregiver. PwD's quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy, and depression were equally most important for PwD and caregivers. However, PwD memory was only important for caregivers but not for PwD, and caregiver QoL was moderately important for PwD but least important for caregivers. Additionally, comfort and family involvement were most important for patients' end-of-life care, whereas caregivers most preferred good communication and pain management. Also, preferences depend on the living situation: Patients living not alone prefer a regular care provider most, whereas those living alone only want to live nearby the caregiver. Preferences for leisure activities did not differ between past and present ratings, indicating that PwD prefer activities that have always been carried out.

CONCLUSION

Only a few studies have applied quantitative methods to elicit the preferences of PwD. More research is needed to capture the stated preferences for the treatment, care, and support of PwD to improve health-related outcomes and the allocation of healthcare resources.

Self-management support preferences of people with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise findings from qualitative studies on the preferences of people with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for self-management support.

METHODS

A thematic synthesis of literature was carried out. Six databases (ASSIA, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Psychology and the Behavioural Sciences and SSCI) were used to search for qualitative studies eliciting perspectives of adults with asthma and/or COPD on self-management support, published between May 2008 and April 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 968 articles were retrieved across databases, with 15 articles included in the synthesis. Three themes were identified: Types of Support described the range of supports valued by participants in the studies, particularly education provided by competent healthcare professionals; The Support Relationship highlighted the importance of a collaborative relationship with one's healthcare professional which was characterised by communication, trust and continuity over time and Accessibility identified the considerations of participants relating to physically accessible, prompt support which is provided in a format preferred by the individual.

DISCUSSION

Increased understanding of patients' preferences may provide insight which can be used to enhance engagement with self-management support. Further research needs to examine self-management support preferences outside the context of evaluating interventions for people with asthma/COPD and needs to address the optimal means of enhancing accessibility.

The importance of understanding patient and physician preferences for psoriasis treatment characteristics: a systematic review of discrete-choice experiments

Introduction: Treatment adherence continues to be a major challenge in psoriasis. Patient preference studies, especially discrete-choice experiments, are gaining popularity to gather insights into patient reported treatment outcomes. This systematic literature review aimed to critically assess all discrete choice experiments exploring patients' and physicians' preferences for psoriasis treatment characteristics.Methods: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched using keywords "psoriasis" and "preferences" to identify relevant literature. Discrete-choice experiments conducted in French or English from the year 2000 onwards, that focused on evaluating psoriasis treatment preferences in patients and/or physicians, were included. The relative importance of treatment attributes was assessed and studies were critically appraised using validated checklists.Results: Out of 987 articles identified, 25 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, patients and physicians prioritize efficacy-specific outcomes. Patients are shown to place greater importance to process attributes when compared to physicians, especially route and location of administration. Physicians focus primarily of efficacy attributes, however when the top two attributes are considered, safety outcomes increasingly become considered important. Of the studies, 60% conducted subgroup analysis, of which many reported associations between specific patient characteristics and preferences. Factors such as age, disease severity, and duration of condition significantly affected preferences for treatment attributes.Conclusions: This review provides insight into the types of attributes that patients and physicians value most, and therefore can help improve shared decision-making. The findings of this study also encourage regulatory agencies to continue integrating patient preferences in their decision-making.

Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy - A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify methods used to assess medication preferences in older adults and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages with respect to their applicability to the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO) were searched. Eligible studies elicited individual treatment or outcome preferences in a context that involved long-term pharmacological treatment options. We included studies with a study population aged ≥ 65 years and/or with a mean or median age of ≥ 75 years. Qualitative studies, studies assessing preferences for only two different treatments, and studies targeting preferences for life-sustaining treatments were excluded. The identified preference measurement methods were evaluated based on four criteria (time budget, cognitive demand, variety of pharmacological aspects, and link with treatment strategies) judged to be relevant for the elicitation of patient preferences in polypharmacy.

RESULTS

Sixty articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis. Fifty-five different instruments to assess patient preferences, based on 24 different elicitation methods, were identified. The most commonly applied preference measurement techniques were "medication willingness" (description of a specific medication with inquiry of the participant's willingness to take it), discrete choice experiments, Likert scale-based questionnaires, and rank prioritization. The majority of the instruments were created for disease-specific or context-specific settings. Only three instruments (Outcome Prioritization Tool, a complex intervention, "MediMol" questionnaire) dealt with the broader issue of geriatric multimorbidity. Only seven of the identified tools showed somewhat favorable characteristics for a potential use of the respective method in the context of polypharmacy.

CONCLUSION

Up to now, few instruments have been specifically designed for the assessment of medication preferences in older patients with multimorbidity. To facilitate valid preference elicitation in the context of geriatric polypharmacy, future research should focus on suitable characteristics of existing techniques to develop new measurement approaches for this increasingly relevant population.

Mapping the nomenclature, methodology, and reporting of studies that review methods: a pilot methodological review

BACKGROUND

A relatively novel method of appraisal, methodological reviews (MRs) are used to synthesize information on the methods used in health research. There are currently no guidelines available to inform the reporting of MRs.

OBJECTIVES

This pilot review aimed to determine the feasibility of a full review and the need for reporting guidance for methodological reviews.

METHODS

Search strategy: We conducted a search of PubMed, restricted to 2017 to include the most recently published studies, using different search terms often used to describe methodological reviews: "literature survey" OR "meta-epidemiologic* review" OR "meta-epidemiologic* survey" OR "methodologic* review" OR "methodologic* survey" OR "systematic survey."Data extraction: Study characteristics including country, nomenclature, number of included studies, search strategy, a priori protocol use, and sampling methods were extracted in duplicate and summarized.Outcomes: Primary feasibility outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of the search terms (criteria for success of feasibility set at sensitivity and specificity of ≥ 70%).Analysis: The estimates are reported as a point estimate (95% confidence interval).

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-six articles were retrieved and 31 were included in the final analysis. The most accurate search term was "meta-epidemiological" (sensitivity [Sn] 48.39; 95% CI 31.97-65.16; specificity [Sp] 97.56; 94.42-98.95). The majority of studies were published by authors from Canada (n = 12, 38.7%), and Japan and USA (n = 4, 12.9% each). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) number of included studies in the MRs was 77 (13-1127). Reporting of a search strategy was done in most studies (n = 23, 74.2%). The use of a pre-published protocol (n = 7, 22.6%) or a justifiable sampling method (n = 5, 16.1%) occurred rarely.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the MR nomenclature identified, it is feasible to build a comprehensive search strategy and conduct a full review. Given the variation in reporting practices and nomenclature attributed to MRs, there is a need for guidance on standardized and transparent reporting of MRs. Future guideline development would likely include stakeholders from Canada, USA, and Japan.

Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To investigate men's values and preferences regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and grey literature up to 2 September 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Primary studies of men's values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of PSA screening.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with a modified version of a risk of bias tool for values and preferences studies, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument V.3 and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

We identified 4172 unique citations, of which 11 studies proved eligible. Five studies investigated PSA screening using a direct choice study design, whereas six used decisions aids displaying patient-important outcomes. The direct choice studies used different methodologies and varied considerably in the reporting of outcomes. Two studies suggested that men were willing to forego screening with a small benefit in prostate cancer mortality if it would decrease the likelihood of unnecessary treatment or biopsies. In contrast, one study reported that men were willing to accept a substantial overdiagnosis to reduce their risk of prostate cancer mortality. Among the six studies involving decision aids, willingness to undergo screening varied substantially from 37% when displaying a hypothetical reduction in mortality of 10 per 1000 men, to 44% when displaying a reduction in mortality of 7 per 1000. We found no studies that specifically investigated whether values and preferences differed among men with family history, of African descent or with lower socioeconomic levels.

CONCLUSION

The variability of men's values and preferences reflect that the decision to screen is highly preference sensitive. Our review highlights the need for shared decision making in men considering prostate cancer screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095585.