ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Digit. Health
Sec. Human Factors and Digital Health
This article is part of the Research TopicPatient-Centered Care: Strengthening Trust and Communication in Healthcare RelationshipsView all 22 articles
Assessing patient preferences for medical decision making - a comparison of different methods
Provisionally accepted
- 1Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, Germany
- 2Institute for Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Bavaria, Germany
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: Patient preferences are a critical component of shared decision-making (SDM), particularly when choosing between treatment options with differing risks and outcomes. Many methods exist to elicit these preferences, but their complexity, usability, and acceptance vary. Objective: We aim to gain insight into the acceptance, effort and preferences of participants regarding five different methods of preference assessment. Additionally, we investigate the influence of health status, experiences within the health system and of demographic factors on the results. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey including five preference elicitation methods: best-worst scaling, direct weighting, PAPRIKA (Potentially All Pairwise Rankings of all Possible Alternatives), time trade-off, and standard gamble. The questionnaire was distributed via academic and patient advocacy mailing lists, reaching both healthy individuals and those with acute or chronic illnesses. Participants rated each method using six standardized statements on a 5-point Likert scale. Additional items assessed general acceptance of algorithm-assisted preference assessments and the clarity of the questionnaire. Results: Of 258 initiated questionnaires, 123 (48%) were completed and included in the analysis. Participants were diverse in age, gender, and health status, but predominantly highly educated and digitally literate. Across all measures, the PAPRIKA method received the highest ratings for clarity, usability, and perceived ability to express preferences. Simpler methods (best-worst scaling, direct weighting) were rated as less useful for capturing nuanced preferences, while abstract utility-based methods (standard gamble, time trade-off) were seen as cognitively demanding. Subgroup analyses showed minimal variation across demographic groups. Most participants (82%) could imagine using at least one of the presented methods in real clinical settings, but also emphasized the importance of physician involvement in interpreting results. Conclusion: The interactive PAPRIKA method best balanced cognitive demand and expressiveness and was preferred by most participants. Structured methods for preference elicitation may enhance SDM when integrated into clinical workflows and supported by healthcare professionals. Further research is needed to evaluate their use in real-world decisions and among more diverse patient populations.
Keywords: Patient Preference, shared decision making, medical decision aids, Potentially all pairwise RanKings of all possible alternatives (PAPRIKA) method, Questionaire method
Received: 05 Jun 2025; Accepted: 27 Oct 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Fusiak, Wolkenstein and Hoffmann. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Verena Sophia Hoffmann, vhoffmann@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.