Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

A Systematic Review of Quantitative Health Preference Methods to Support Value Clarification and Shared Decision Making: A Report of an ISPOR Special Interest Group

  • Janine A. van Til*
  • , Holly L. Peay
  • , Ahmed M.Y. Osman
  • , Angie Botto-van Bemden
  • , Caitlin Thomas
  • , Carina Oedingen
  • , Caroline Vass
  • , Elise Schoefs
  • , Laurie Batchelder
  • , Semra Ozdemir
  • , Christine Poulos
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • University of Twente
  • Faegre Drinker Consulting
  • International Islamic University Malaysia
  • Musculoskeletal Research International
  • Thermo Fisher Scientific UK
  • University of Calgary
  • RTI Health Solutions
  • KU Leuven
  • IQVIA Inc.
  • Duke University

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

12 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to explore the design and outcomes of preference-based value clarification methods (Pb-VCMs) used in the context of supporting patients’ clinical decision making to understand whether guidance is used in Pb-VCM development and which Pb-VCM is most effective. Methods: In April of 2023, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting the development and/or evaluation of Pb-VCMs without restrictions on publication date. Two reviewers independently extracted data including context and clinical decisions, study methods, sample, Pb-VCM design and development, type of preference information, and measurement of outcomes, such as feasibility/acceptability and effectiveness. Data were synthesized using descriptive and narrative analyses. Results: Of 3207 abstracts screened, 50 studies were included: 28 descriptive, 9 observational, and 13 experimental. The most common Pb-VCM approaches were adaptive conjoint analysis (n = 16), analytic hierarchy process (n = 9), and simple ranking (n = 6). Most studies (n = 37) did not report using preference- or decision aid-specific guidelines to support development. Personalized preference information was provided to participants in 45 studies. Most studies reported positive findings related to feasibility and participant experience, although complexity was identified as a challenge. The most-frequently assessed outcomes were decisional conflict and value congruence. Evidence on effectiveness was limited and mixed. Conclusions: Although individual studies report positive findings, variation in design and reporting of existing studies hinders drawing of general conclusions regarding whether Pb-VCMs improve decision-making processes and outcomes. Future research should focus on developing guidelines, for which the data extraction form developed for this study could serve as a starting point.

Original languageEnglish
JournalValue in Health
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 16 Apr 2026

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2026 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Systematic Review of Quantitative Health Preference Methods to Support Value Clarification and Shared Decision Making: A Report of an ISPOR Special Interest Group'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this