Patient preferences are statements made or actions taken by consumers that reflect their desirability of a range of health options. The concept occupies an increasingly prominent place at the center of healthcare reform, and is connected to all aspects of healthcare, including discovery, research, delivery, outcome, and payment. Patient preference research has focused on shared decisions, decisional aids, and clinical practice guideline development, with limited study in acute and chronic wound care populations. The wound care community has focused primarily on patient focused symptoms and quality of life measurement. With increasing recognition of wound care as a medical specialty and as a public health concern that consumes extensive resources, attention to the preferences of end-users with wounds is necessary. This article will provide an overview of related patient-centered concepts and begin to establish a framework for consideration of patient preference in wound care.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SackettDL and RosenbergWM: The need for evidence-based medicine. J R Soc Med, 1995; 88: 620.
2.
FredericksS, LapumJ, SchwindJ, BeanlandsH, RomaniukD, and McCayE: Discussion of patient-centered care in health care organizations. Qual Manag Health Care, 2012; 21: 127.
3.
BrennanPF and StrombomI: Improving health care by understanding patient preferences: the role of computer technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 1998; 5: 257.
4.
SidaniS, EpsteinD, and MirandaJ: Eliciting patient treatment preferences: A strategy to integrate evidence-based and patient-centered care. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs, 2006; 3: 116.
5.
AningJJ, WassersugRJ, and GoldenbergSL: Patient preference and the impact of decision-making aids on prostate cancer treatment choices and post-intervention regret. Curr Oncol, 2012; 19: 37.
6.
Institute of Medicine: Crossing the Quality Chasm. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2001.
7.
EpsteinRM and StreetRLJr.: The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med, 2011; 9: 100.
8.
SelbyJV, BealAC, and FrankL: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA, 2012; 307: 1583.
9.
ElwynG, LaitnerS, CoulterA, WalkerE, WatsonP, and ThomsonR: Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ, 2010; 341: c5146.
10.
AndersonRM and FunnellMM: Patient empowerment: myths and misconceptions. Patient Educ Couns, 2010; 79: 277.
11.
LongtinY, SaxH, LeapeL, et al.: Patient participation: Current knowledge and applicability to patient safety. Mayo Clin Proc, 2010; 85: 53.
12.
ElwynG, FroschD, ThomsonR, et al.: Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med, 2012; 27: 1361.
13.
ChewningB, BylundCL, ShahB, AroraNK, GueguenJA, and MakoulG: Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns, 2012; 86: 9.
14.
ElwynG, O'ConnorA, StaceyD, et al.: Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ, 2006; 333: 417.
15.
Peripheral vascular disease: should I have surgery? Heathwise Shared Decision Points, www.healthwise.org (accessed 6/21/13).
16.
StaceyD, BennettCL, BarryMJ, et al.: Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2011; CD001431.
17.
KungJ, MillerRR, and MackowiakPA: Failure of clinical practice guidelines to meet Institute of Medicine standards. Arch Intern Med, 2012; 172: 1628.
18.
National Guidelines Cleaninghouse, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, www.guidelines.gov (accessed 6/21/13).
19.
van der WeijdenT, LégaréF, BoivinA, et al.: How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol. Implement Sci, 2010; 5: 10.
20.
LégaréF, BoivinA, van der WeijdenT, et al.: Patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: a knowledge synthesis of existing programs. Med Decis Making, 2011; 31: E45.
21.
EddyDM, AdlerJ, PattersonB, LucasD, SmithKA, and MorrisM: Individualized guidelines: the potential for increasing quality and reducing costs. Arch Intern Med, 2011; 154: 627.
22.
ChongCA, ChenIJ, NaglieG, and KrahnMD: How well do guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences?. J Gen Intern Med, 2009; 24: 977.
23.
National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel: Pressure ulcer prevention recommendations. In: Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline. Washington, DC: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, 2009, p. 21.
24.
CallardF, RoseD, and WykesT: Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: involving service users in all phases of translational research. Health Expect, 2012; 15: 389.
25.
Biomarker Definitions Working Group: Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2001; 69: 89.
26.
HahmG, GlaserJJ, and ElsterEA: Biomarkers to predict wound healing: the future of complex war wound management. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2011; 127Suppl 1: 21S.
27.
MoffatCJ: Meeting the psychosocial challenges of leg ulceration. Nurs Times, 2006; 102: 51.
28.
JaksaPJ and MahoneyJL: Quality of life in patients with diabetic foot ulcers: validation of the CWIS in a Canadian population. Int Wound J, 2010; 7: 502.
29.
GoreckiC, BrownJM, NelsonEA, et al.: Impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life in older patients: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2009; 57: 1175.
30.
SpilsburyK, NelsonA, CullumN, IglesiasC, NixonJ, and MasonS: Pressure ulcers and their treatment and effects on quality of life: hospital inpatient perspectives. J Adv Nurs, 2007; 57: 494.
31.
PriceP and HardingK: Cardiff wound impact schedule: the development of a condition-specific questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in patients with chronic wounds of the lower limb. Int Wound J, 2004; 1: 10.
32.
WooKY and SibbaldRG: Chronic wound pain: a conceptual model. Adv Skin Wound Care, 2008; 21: 175; quiz 189–90.
33.
GrocottP, WeirH, and RamMB: A model of user engagement in medical device development. Int J Health Care Qual Assur, 2007; 20: 484.
34.
VermeulenH, UbbinkDT, de ZwartF, GoossensA, and de VosR: Preferences of patients, doctors, and nurses regarding wound dressing characteristics: a conjoint analysis. Wound Repair Regen, 2007; 15: 302.
35.
WUWHS: Principles of best practice: wound exudate and the role of dressings: a consensus document. London: MEP Ltd., 2007.
36.
MoffattCJ, EdwardsL, CollierM, et al.: A randomized controlled 8-week crossover clinical evalaution of the 3M Coban 2 Layer Compression System versus Profore to evaluate the produt perfromance in patients with venous leg ulcers. Int Wound J, 2008; 5: 267.
37.
AbmaTA and BroerseJE: Patient participation as dialogue: setting research agendas. Health Expect, 2010; 13: 160.
38.
EnnisWJ, et al.: Patient-centered outcomes in wound care: The results of a qualitative study and national summit. Poster presented at the Symposium on Advanced Wound Care, Baltimore, MD, September 2012.
39.
EskesAM, BrölmannFE, SumpioBE, et al.: Fundamentals of randomized clinical trials in wound care: design and conduct. Wound Repair Regen, 2012; 20: 449.
40.
JonesKR: Why do chronic venous leg ulcers not heal?. J Nurs Care Qual, 2009; 24: 116.
41.
AAWC: Association for the Advancement of Wound Care. [cited 12/15/12]; Available from www.aawconline.org
42.
EpsteinRM and GramlingRE: What is shared in shared decision making?. Complex decisions when the evidence is unclear., 2013; 70: 94S–112S.
43.
PriceP: Does empowerment link to clinical practice?. EWMA, 2011; 11: 16.
