Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Not Ask?

Measuring Patient Preferences for Healthcare Decision Making

  • Editorial
  • Published:
The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For 13 days the disputation raged without ceasing. All the ancient books and chronicles were fetched out, and wonderful and ponderous erudition, such as was never before heard of in this region, was made manifest. At the beginning of the 14th day, a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the disputants, whose wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of, and to look in the open mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings. At this, their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceedingly wroth; and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely Satan hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and unheard-of ways of finding the truth contrary to all the teachings of the fathers. Attributed to Francis Bacon, 1592.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Mees C. Scientific thought and social reconstruction. Electr Eng 1934; 53: 383–4

    Google Scholar 

  2. Torrance GW. Utility measurement in healthcare: the things I never got to. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24(11): 1069–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Harsanyi J. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. J Polit Econ 1955; 63: 309–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. American Medical Association. Informed consent [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4608.html [Accessed 2008 Mar 7]

  5. Yeo M. Toward an ethic of empowerment for health promotion. Health Promot Int 1993; 8(3): 225–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chilton F, Collett RA. Treatment choices, preferences and decision-making by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Musculoskeletal Care 2008; 6(1): 1–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Buchanan A. Medical paternalism. Philos Public Aff 1978; 7(4): 370–90

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Buchanan A. Principal/agent theory and decision making in health care. Bioethics 1988; 2(4): 317–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gemperli MP. Rethinking the role of the learned intermediary: the effect of direct-to-consumer advertising on litigation. JAMA 2000; 284(17): 2241

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). PhRMA guiding principles: direct to consumer advertisements about prescription medicines. PhRMA, 2005 Nov [online]. Available from URL: http://www.phrma.org/files/DTCGuidingprinciples.pdf [Accessed 2008 Mar 7]

  11. McDonald HP, Garg AX, Haynes RB. Interventions to enhance patient adherence to medication prescriptions: scientific review. JAMA 2002; 288(22): 2868–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Greenhalgh T. Outside the ivory towers: evidence-based medicine in the real world. Br J Gen Pract 1998; 48(435): 1716–8

    Google Scholar 

  13. Miguel FS, Ryan M, Amaya-Amaya M. ‘Irrational’ stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. Health Econ 2008; 14(3): 307–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Thompson DB. Valuing the environment: courts’ struggles with natural resource damages. Environ Law 2002; 32: 57–89

    Google Scholar 

  15. Desvousges WH, Johnson FR, Dunford RW, et al. Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability. In: Hausman JA, editor. Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 2008: 91–114

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 2005

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Louviere J, S wait J, Hensher D. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 2000

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, et al. Using conjoint analysis to model the preferences of different patient segments for attributes of patient-centered care. Patient 2008; 1(4): 317–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Telser H, Becker K, Zweifel P. Validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates: evidence from two overlapping discrete-choice experiments. Patient 2008; 1(4): 283–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lloyd A, Mclntosh E, Williams AE, et al. How does patients’ quality of life guide their preferences regarding aspects of asthma therapy? A patient-preference study using discrete-choice experiment methodology. Patient 2008; 1(4): 309–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. IJzerman MJ, van Til JA, Snoek GJ. Comparison of two multi-criteria decision techniques for eliciting treatment preferences in people with neurological disorders. Patient 2008; 1(4): 265–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fraenkel L. Conjoint analysis at the individual patient level: issues to consider as we move from a research to a clinical tool. Patient 2008; 1(4): 251–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hauber AB. Issues that may affect the validity and reliability of willingness-to-pay estimates in stated-preference studies. Patient 2008; 1(4): 249–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This editorial was funded by an unrestricted RTI research fellowship to Reed Johnson. The author wishes to thank Brett Hauber for his comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript and John Bridges for his support of the Conjoint Analysis and Health Conference, which prompted these reflections.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, PO Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27709, USA

    F. Reed Johnson

Authors
  1. F. Reed Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Reed Johnson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, F.R. Why Not Ask?. Patient-Patient-Centered-Outcome-Res 1, 245–248 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/1312067-200801040-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/1312067-200801040-00003

Search

Navigation