ライフサイエンスコーパス: patient preference

1 us surgery (bypass, sleeve or band, based on patient preference).

2 ge part of the move to adopt TM is driven by patient preference.

3 ncer diagnosis and hysterectomy according to patient preference.

4 ly influenced by the risk of bleeding and by patient preference.

5 corporate etiology, risk, benefit, cost, and patient preference.

6 performance status, comorbid conditions, and patient preference.

7 l intolerance, bone marrow suppression), and patient preference.

8 ed source case (if known), safety, cost, and patient preference.

9 f recurrence and bleeding risk, coupled with patient preference.

10 f comorbidity, toxicity, and limited data on patient preference.

11 ing surgeon recommendation and 8.8% based on patient preference.

12 te other risk factors, and are invariable to patient preference.

13 The primary end point was patient preference.

14 the procedure should be based on surgeon or patient preference.

15 ed and a questionnaire was used to determine patient preference.

16 ch as efficacy and adverse event profiles to patient preference.

17 and fluctuations of serum glucose levels, or patient preference.

18 as patient symptoms, exercise tolerance, and patient preference.

19 ent generally based on space availability or patient preference.

20 ession or removal from study for toxicity or patient preference.

21 19 received dual-chamber pacemakers based on patient preference.

22 ce between these treatments should depend on patient preference.

23 er clinical and angiographic suitability and patient preference.

24 ommend therapy based on cancer prognosis and patient preference.

25 sites, and pace of disease progression, and patient preference.

26 atient presentation, surgeon preference, and patient preference.

27 adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences.

28 d further research in understanding risk and patient preferences.

29 th high variation should prompt attention to patient preferences.

30 geneic HCT is unknown and depends heavily on patient preferences.

31 y due to specific individual risk factors or patient preferences.

32 nt's general health and life expectancy, and patient preferences.

33 ons should be individualized and informed by patient preferences.

34 on patient characteristics and physician and patient preferences.

35 est, availability of the screening test, and patient preferences.

36 rgery should be driven primarily by informed patient preferences.

37 quality of life and detailed exploration of patient preferences.

38 nal speech and little (12%) spent discussing patient preferences.

39 nce status, severity of comorbid illness, or patient preferences.

40 ations, presenting syndromes, physician, and patient preferences.

41 considering cancer outcomes, morbidity, and patient preferences.

42 ure guidelines should incorporate individual patient preferences.

43 diabetes, comorbidity, life expectancy, and patient preferences.

44 ts (n = 19) to describe their perceptions of patient preferences.

45 sideration of potential benefits, risks, and patient preferences.

46 nostic features on individual prognosis, and patient preferences.

47 on tumor subtype, anatomic cancer stage, and patient preferences.

48 to optimally match management decisions with patient preferences.

49 l care costs in a manner that is dictated by patient preferences.

50 decision-making but not an overall change in patient preferences.

51 ependent on the accuracy of each test and to patient preferences.

52 e of liver dysfunction, life expectancy, and patient preferences.

53 , harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient preferences.

54 ent decisions should be made in keeping with patient preferences.

55 cal distress, and treatments misaligned with patient preferences.

56 ing ICU resource use with clinical needs and patient preferences.

57 hat was more aggressive than their report of patient preferences.

58 about potential harms, benefits, costs, and patient preferences.

59 xplicitly incorporates burden of disease and patient preferences.

60 rror, regardless of the burden of disease or patient preferences.

61 ed risk for subsequent in-breast events, and patient preferences.

62 changes in treatment guidelines and provider/patient preferences.

63 o consider disease stage, comorbidities, and patient preferences.

64 SLIT products of proved value and personal (patient) preference.

65 tting based on cancer specific mortality and patients' preference.

66 meetings which did not actively incorporate patients' preferences.

67 magnitude of increases in cardiac risk, and patients' preferences.

68 mes of treatment and their likelihood affect patients' preferences.

69 their medical judgment conflicts with dying patients' preferences.

70 d clinicians in matching treatments to their patients' preferences.

71 Decisions are often discordant with patients' preferences.

72 enrollment appears generally consistent with patients' preferences.

73 yet attempting upgrade in the substudy were patient preference (31.9%), New York Heart Association C

74 This may lead to "confounding by unmeasured patient preferences" (a type of confounding by indicatio

75 Patient preferences about disclosure when physicians dis

76 If patient preferences about the trade-offs between the ris

77 ing the likelihood of benefits and harms and patient preferences about treatment and treatment burden

78 ed to reach the target, life expectancy, and patient preferences about treatment.

79 nalysis identified clinical characteristics, patient preferences, access issues, clinical and adminis

80 eing given according to physician choice and patient preference after the 1 year trial final assessme

81 utility analysis, which incorporates data on patient preferences, along with survival and cost data,

82 he heterogeneity in etiologies, outcomes, or patient preferences among the elderly.

83 alysis modality selection should be based on patient preference and medical indications.

84 Comparison for patient preference and pain indices gave statistically s

85 Limited concordance between patient preference and patient perception and between pa

86 Patient preference and perception of pain, change in Dum

87 The optimal approach depends on patient preference and specific patient clinical feature

88 performance status (ECOG PS) 0 to 1 based on patient preference and support system available.

89 elected in any given patient is dependent up patient preference and the availability and experience o

90 k factors of recurrent VTE and bleeding, and patient preference and values regarding long-term antico

91 For patients at moderate risk for stroke, patient preferences and access to reliable anticoagulati

92 stic impact of repeat revascularization, and patient preferences and appraisal of the import of repea

93 se to formulate treatment plans that reflect patient preferences and are more likely to fit into the

94 ch patient and that takes into consideration patient preferences and control of hyperglycemia and dys

95 he benefits and harms of health care, and to patient preferences and personal values (67 articles); (

96 better understand the contributions of both patient preferences and physician judgment to these trea

97 used to attenuate confounding by unmeasured patient preferences and provide novel opportunities to i

98 t in mental health decision making including patient preferences and provider-level biases.

99 SDM stresses the importance of patient preferences and rigorous discussion of therapeut

100 In addition, we discuss issues of patient preferences and the future directions of MR imag

101 he technique for appendectomy will depend on patient preferences and the presence of local expertise.

102 atment decisions should be more sensitive to patient preferences and tolerance of therapy.

103 ersonalized to consider severity of disease, patient preferences and values, as well as risks and ben

104 outcomes, physicians should routinely elicit patients' preferences and allow them to participate in d

105 es remained significant after adjustment for patients' preferences and expectations about transplanta

106 Patients' preferences and expectations of chronic diseas

107 his strategy involves a formal discussion of patients' preferences and expectations, the maintenance

108 ructured, standardized approach to exploring patients' preferences and to integrating those preferenc

109 hough the clinical decision was sensitive to patients' preferences and to the estimate of warfarin's

110 This study aimed to quantify patients' preferences and trade-offs for important outco

111 en geographic areas is due to differences in patients' preferences and values or to surgeons' propens

112 ans talk with surrogates about incapacitated patients' preferences and values.

113 as socioeconomic factors, health insurance, patient preference, and clinical practice patterns warra

114 cluding younger age, prostate cancer volume, patient preference, and ethnicity should be taken into a

115 ive health status, diversion choice based on patient preference, and postoperative clinical outcomes.

116 Ocular hyperemia, patient preference, and self-projected adherence were as

117 oglobin level, the overall clinical context, patient preferences, and alternative therapies when maki

118 All factors, including adverse effects, patient preferences, and cost, should be considered in s

119 t symptoms, symptom severity, control of AR, patient preferences, and cost.

120 y disease complexity, patient comorbidities, patient preferences, and local expertise.

121 a from records, including clinical findings, patient preferences, and medical and family history.

122 quality of life, predicted life expectancy, patient preferences, and other patient factors be consid

123 care facility, postacute care availability, patient preferences, and socioeconomic factors may accou

124 mendations informed by clinical judgment and patient preferences; and checking for understanding and

125 lve disease, annular size, and physician and patient preference are also relevant.

126 Finally, patient preferences are a vital component of informed de

127 sues of safety, pain control and respect for patient preferences are important goals as well.

128 well as the benefit of initiating treatment, patient preferences are important in deciding on managem

129 cations for surgery, and the extent to which patient preferences are incorporated into treatment deci

130 these strategies that evaluate outcomes and patient preferences are needed to optimize management de

131 This study analyzes patients' preferences around disclosure in cases of IMED

132 roach of interpretive description to analyze patients' preferences around disclosure in cases of inte

133 Patient preferences, as well as evidence, are important

134 body of literature on utility analysis using patient preference-based outcomes for ophthalmic disease

135 asures in patients without LWs may result in patients' preferences being superseded at end of life.

136 esearch is necessary to reliably account for patient preferences between the 2 operations.

137 actice and have demonstrated feasibility and patient preference but have produced mixed results regar

138 ions with physicians led to increased use of patient preferences, but sophisticated educational techn

139 After the consultation, 43% of patients' preferences changed, and most shifted toward p

140 Barriers such as adherence, patient preferences, clinician preferences, and resource

141 h systematic features of the methodology and patient preference/collaboration with treatment.

142 ant endocrine strategy accordingly, based on patient preferences, comorbidities, and tolerability mig

143 these available therapies should be based on patient preferences, compliance, and ease of administrat

144 d base the choice of specific monotherapy on patient preference, cost, and adverse effect profile.

145 g, there are barriers to training, including patient preferences, costs of procedures and products, a

146 ls, cohort studies, administrative data, and patient preference data.

147 our common clinical goals: increasing use of patient preferences, decreasing pain and suffering, redu

148 ents of drug risks do not routinely consider patient preferences, despite evidence that some patients

149 ee of language gap, available resources, and patient preference), discuss who may be an appropriate i

150 should be made for each individual based on patient preference, disease markers, consequences of rel

151 concerns over side effects and drug safety, patient preference, drug availability, and cost.

152 This practice may limit the expression of patient preferences during decision making for high-risk

153 s guidance, we aimed to provide quantitative patient preference evidence on benefit-risk tradeoffs re

154 erapy and CMT, emphasizing the importance of patient preference exploration and shared decision makin

155 pholipid antibody, low risk of bleeding, and patient preference favor indefinite anticoagulation.

156 The primary end point, patient preference for a specific treatment, was assesse

157 bilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home.

158 However, a patient preference for consistently early bets indicated

159 Patient preference for decision making did not impact ti

160 Patient preference for oral therapy is identified as a s

161 This double-blind cross-over study evaluated patient preference for pazopanib or sunitinib and the in

162 cross-over trial demonstrated a significant patient preference for pazopanib over sunitinib, with HR

163 d method of contacting patients aligned with patient preference for speaking by telephone (56.5%).

164 After adjusting for severity of illness and patient preferences for care, patient sociodemographic f

165 ding patient safety, as well as demonstrated patient preferences for certified physicians, will likel

166 Patient preferences for closure type were assessed 3 to

167 ncies in the current state of communication, patient preferences for communication about palliative c

168 s, decision making, and quality of life; and patient preferences for communication with physicians ab

169 influence on outcome, treatment response, or patient preferences for diagnostic efforts.

170 benefits of radiation therapy and individual patient preferences for different health states should b

171 Physicians are frequently unaware of patient preferences for end-of-life care.

172 assessed interest in genomic RFR testing and patient preferences for incorporating results into treat

173 Physician perceptions were concordant with patient preferences for information in 44% of patient-ph

174 e only about 65% of the time when predicting patient preferences for intensive care.

175 This study explored patient preferences for involvement in the breast cancer

176 The importance of understanding patient preferences for life-sustaining treatment is wel

177 clearly defined advance directives regarding patient preferences for medical care (adjusted odds rati

178 iding an additional treatment alternative on patient preferences for nonselective nonsteroidal antiin

179 Patient preferences for osteoporosis treatment options a

180 ase, so choice of treatment should depend on patient preferences for other outcomes.

181 orporate contributing factors to anxiety and patient preferences for psychiatric care.

182 atment decisions and how physicians perceive patient preferences for such involvement are uncertain.

183 This study was designed to analyze how patient preferences for survival versus quality-of-life

184 The optimal ASCVD threshold was sensitive to patient preferences for taking a pill daily, changes to

185 the sensitivity of computed tomography, and patient preferences for time spent in watchful waiting.

186 vement in health-related quality of life and patient preferences for tofacitinib.

187 The assessment of patient preferences for treatment outcomes is an underex

188 The patients' preference for cardiopulmonary resuscitation w

189 Given many patients' preference for psychotherapy over pharmacother

190 uenced both oncologists' recommendations and patients' preferences for chemotherapy.

191 gher survival estimates were associated with patients' preferences for CPR, fewer documented treatmen

192 Factor analysis indicated that patients' preferences for how they would like to be told

193 aracteristics, prognoses, baseline function, patients' preferences for life-extending care, and physi

194 nding care, and physicians' understanding of patients' preferences for life-extending care.

195 Physicians underestimated older patients' preferences for life-extending care; adjustmen

196 nce care planning, physicians should discuss patients' preferences for location of death.

197 d life-sustaining treatments, independent of patients' preferences for or ability to benefit from suc

198 s is limited by a lack of data on individual patients' preferences for PoD or a clinical indication o

199 s or doing so if it is consistent with their patients' preferences for prognostic information.

200 Little is known about patients' preferences for site of terminal care.

201 Patients' preferences for treatment were measured, and p

202 Patients' preferences for various outcomes of anticoagul

203 For older patients, preference for life-extending treatment was as

204 h risk for fracture based on a discussion of patient preferences, fracture risk profile, and benefits

205 a risk-stratified manner - taking account of patient preference - from the outset or in sequence

206 The optimal approach depends on patient preference, geography, and clinical factors.

207 n, participation, and in-depth discussion of patient preferences given the preference-sensitive natur

208 nicians; clinical decision-making focused on patients' preferences, goals, and values; patient care m

209 Patient preference has shifted from face-to-face visit t

210 ical advances in the past decade, along with patient preference, have shifted revascularization strat

211 therapy, but the relative contributions from patient preference, health team, and systems-based reaso

212 ange, 0 [best] to 88 [worst]), discussion of patient preferences, hospital length of stay, and 90-day

213 gical treatment decisions should be based on patient preference if a patient is eligible for all 3.

214 characteristics, drug-drug interactions, and patient preference in decision making.

215 Incorporating patient preferences in an acute context, such as trauma

216 consideration of adverse effect profiles and patient preferences in deciding whether and when to inco

217 sed direct patient engagement to account for patient preferences in the final model.

218 ive, highlighting the importance of engaging patient preferences in this decision.

219 e goal of shared decision making is to match patient preferences, including evaluation of potential f

220 demonstrated the feasibility of integrating patient preference information into clinical care, altho

221 Health issued Guidance in 2016 on generating patient preference information to aid evaluation of medi

222 e between groups regarding the discussion of patient preferences (intervention, 75%; control, 83%; od

223 fy and treat modifiable factors, incorporate patient preference into evaluation and treatment, initia

224 strategies are needed to integrate informed patient preferences into clinical care, particularly for

225 phasizing the need to incorporate individual patient preferences into treatment decisions for osteopo

226 ble practice are wide, and information about patient preference is lacking.

227 costs, stronger consideration of the role of patient preferences is necessary when framing discussion

228 he bimodal distribution and the stability of patient preference limit utility as a trial end point, b

229 site for cardiac catheterization because of patient preference, lower bleeding rates, cost effective

230 of pterygium, age of patient, and surgeon or patient preference may influence the surgeon's choice of

231 Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patient preferences may account for some of the variabil

232 However, patient preferences may explain some of the variability

233 for localized prostate cancer, clinician and patient preferences may lead to substantial variation in

234 Patient preferences may not always match specific qualit

235 Elicitation of patients' preferences may be useful to determine the lev

236 pitalization and provide care congruent with patient preferences might target individuals at higher r

237 body habitus, local renal anatomy, cost and patient preference, must be taken into consideration whe

238 se patients did not receive an LVAD owing to patient preference (n = 14) or unavailability of the dev

239 temic chemotherapy (n = 4), and observation (patient preference; n = 1).

240 Challenges to trial accrual included patient preference of noninvestigational treatment or lo

241 were to determine the cost-effectiveness and patient preferences of a strategy employing abdominal co

242 ry of cancers whose diagnosis is delayed and patient preferences of the value on avoiding any form of

243 igation is needed to determine the impact of patient preferences on clinical decision-making and outc

244 Given patient preference or baseline comorbidities, multimodal

245 -eligible patients was largely the result of patient preference or clinical/social factors.

246 ent that depends on data that do not reflect patient preference or contraindications in conditions wh

247 algesia, and/or anti-inflammatory drugs, per patient preference or physician recommendation) for 4 we

248 screening rates, and (3) not accounting for patient preferences or clinician judgment when scoring p

249 x differences in treatment decisions reflect patient preferences or treatment biases requires further

250 ; range, 0-16%) of words spoken pertained to patient preferences or values.

251 neither clinicians nor surrogates discussed patients' preferences or values about end-of-life decisi

252 imitations in the research evidence, unclear patient preferences, or an inability to predict how trea

253 ent eligibility, clinical contraindications, patient preferences, or confounding by other clinical fa

254 tion of type of hormonal therapy is based on patient preference, other indications for and contraindi

255 rovement was consistent with the significant patient preference (P < 0.05) for the ON vs. OFF period

256 desirable prevention strategy for reasons of patient preference, particularly among older patients fr

257 rtaining germline alterations, and assessing patient preferences/perspectives on data use/reporting.

258 uced left ventricular ejection fraction, and patient preference plays a role in determining which to

259 meeting may support decisions in relation to patient preferences, prognosis, and proportionality.

260 e surgical techniques, economic factors, and patient preferences provided addition impetus to the pop

261 The goals of care, patient preferences, psychological status, support syste

262 erentiate whether these associations reflect patients' preferences, quality of physician training, su

263 incipally dependent on clinical expertise or patient preference rather than high-quality clinical tri

264 fits and risks of anticoagulation along with patient preference rather than on an algorithmic pathway

265 follow-up data are still needed; in the end, patient preference regarding the relative risks and bene

266 proving understanding about how to integrate patient preferences regarding cost discussions into clin

267 Patient preferences regarding which provider handles the

268 The goal of this study was to assess patients' preferences regarding the way in which physici

269 cancer care; however, little is known about patients' preferences regarding which providers handle t

270 Of 7,391 patients, preferences regarding place of death were dete

271 one treatment over the other will depend on patient preference, resource limitations, cost, and indi

272 ion by providing a framework for integrating patient preferences, scientific knowledge, clinical judg

273 acute exacerbations but also individualized patient preference-sensitive short-term and long-term pr

274 Patient preferences should be considered because the abs

275 Until those are available, patient preferences should inform individual decisions r

276 At the societal levels, patients' preferences should help guide decisions includ

277 -making, and that flexibility for individual patients' preferences should not be superseded by rigid

278 -cell carcinoma dependent on factors such as patient preference, size and site of the lesion, and whe

279 Patient preference strongly favored the aprepitant cycle

280 This raised estimate, if confirmed in formal patient-preference studies, indicates a need to reassess

281 icit, record, and harmonize documentation of patient preferences that can be used to attenuate confou

282 e than four-fifths (81%) reported discussing patient preferences to limit postoperative life-supporti

283 impact of a proposed policy giving pediatric patients preference to pediatric donors.

284 bers were lower than planned because of many patients' preference to take memantine or cholinesterase

285 Patients' preferences toward their actual mechanical ven

286 Medical ethics and law, in keeping with patients' preferences, traditionally have provided stron

287 each meeting was to address medical update, patient preferences, treatment plan, and milestones for

288 Goals of care, patient preferences, treatment response, psychological s

289 ine or deferred quinacrine in an open-label, patient-preference trial.

290 Key among such standards is the use of patient preferences (utilities), as patients best unders

291 Patient preference was assessed by questionnaire.

292 We judged it unlikely that patient preferences were driving the decision to obtain

293 Safety outcomes, clopidogrel adherence, and patient preferences were secondary outcomes.

294 settings, review how they would incorporate patient preferences when making treatment decisions, and

295 ine or interpersonal psychotherapy (based on patient preference), while controls underwent no treatme

296 Prospective information on patient preferences will facilitate future trials evalua

297 gh the benefit of geographic convenience and patient preference with center outcomes.

298 logical rationale, caregiver experience, and patient preferences with valid and current clinical rese

299 ly assessed the association between race and patients' preferences with respect to transplantation.

300 were assigned to receive versus not receive patient preferences, with subsequent assessment of treat