Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Qualitative Approaches to Understanding Patient Preferences

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

Abstract

Achieving patient-centered care depends on a thorough understanding of patient preferences at all stages of their journeys through healthcare. Qualitative research methods provide the means to systematically collect and analyze these preferences. Qualitative approaches to research are diverse in character, but many such approaches have a long history and strong disciplinary roots. Despite variation, most qualitative approaches work inductively from the ‘ground up’, and seek to build knowledge and understanding rather than test hypotheses. Their use to explore patient pathways through care has offered insight into reasons why people become patients in the first instance, their preferences for treatment options and degree of involvement in decisions, and their preferences for healthcare delivery.

Qualitative approaches are sometimes used alongside ‘quantitative’ in mixed methods designs, requiring solid expertise and resourcing. Expertise is also crucial in the assessment of quality in qualitative research, and efforts to develop checklists to assess quality are challenged by evidence about the importance of expertise-based judgments.

Recent developments in health research include an upsurge in patient involvement activities in design of research and healthcare services; these may seem similar to qualitative research, but are in fact very different. While an important part of the research landscape, patient involvement activities are not intended to provide robust research-based evidence about patients’ preferences or experiences. There is pressing need to bridge the gap between qualitative research evidence and patient involvement in the design of research and services. Participatory research methods that harness qualitative approaches may be a way to achieve this.

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

Table I

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moumjid N, Gafni A, Brémond A, et al. Shared decision making in the medical encounter: are we all talking about the same thing? Med Decis Making 2007; 27(5): 539–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Elwyn G, Edwards A. Shared decision-making in health care: achieving evidence-based patient choice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lock M, Nguyen V-K. An anthropology of biomedicine. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative research in health care. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995 Jul 1; 311(6996): 42–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Glaser B, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago (IL): Aldine Publishing Company, 1967

    Google Scholar 

  7. Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. London: Sage, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  8. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  9. Riessman CK. Narrative analysis: qualitative research methods. Vol. 30. Newbury Park (CA): Sage, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography: principles in practice. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  11. Savage J. Ethnography and health care. BMJ 2000; 31: 1400–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fetterman DM. Ethnography: step-by-step. 3rd ed. Applied Social Research Methods Series. Los Angeles (CA)/London: Sage, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hutchby I, Wooffitt R. Conversation analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  14. Drew P, Heritage J, editors. Conversation analysis (4 volumes) [Benchmarks in Social Research Methods series]. London: Sage, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  15. Smith JA, Osborn M. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Smith JA, editor. Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research methods. London: Sage, 2003: 51–80

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: Sage, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cresswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. London: Sage, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  18. Morse J, Barrett M, Mayan M, et al. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qualitative Methods 2002; 1(2): 13–22

    Google Scholar 

  19. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006; 18(1): 59–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ 2000; 320: 114–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Reeves S, Albert M, Kuper A, et al. Why use theories in qualitative research? BMJ 2008; 337: a949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Blaxter M, Patterson E. Mothers and daughters: a three-generational study of health attitudes and behaviour. London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kleinman A. Patients and healers in the context of culture. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  24. World Health Organization. Adherence to long term therapies: evidence for action. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, et al. Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med 2005; 61(1): 133–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med 2005; 353(5): 487–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Donovan JL, Blake DR. Patient non-compliance: deviance or reasoned decision-making? Soc Sci Med 1992; 34(5): 507–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Milder TY, Lipworth WL, Williams KM, et al. “It looks after me”: how older patients make decisions about analgesics for osteoarthritis. Arthrit Care Res 2011; 63(9): 1280–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sale JEM, Gignac M, Hawker G. How “bad” does the pain have to be? A qualitative study examining adherence to pain medication in older adults with osteoarthritis. Arthrit Care Res 2006; 55(2): 272–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Crane JT, Kawuma A, Oyugi JH, et al. The price of adherence: qualitative findings from HIV positive individuals purchasing fixed-dose combination generic HIV antiretroviral therapy in Kampala, Uganda. AIDS Behav 2006; 10(4): 437–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Regnier Denois V, Poirson J, Nourissat A, et al. Adherence with oral chemotherapy: results from a qualitative study of the behaviour and representations of patients and oncologists. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2011 Jul; 20(4): 520–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Britten N. Medicines and society: patients, professionals and the dominance of pharmaceuticals. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hudak PL, Clark JP, Hawker GA, et al. “You’re perfect for the procedure! Why don’t you want it?” Elderly arthritis patients’ unwillingness to consider total joint arthroplasty surgery: a qualitative study. Med Decis Making 2002; 22(3): 272–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Husain LS, Collins K, Reed M, et al. Choices in cancer treatment: a qualitative study of the older women’s (>70 years) perspective. Psychooncology 2008; 17(4): 410–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Flynn KE, Smith MA, Vanness D. A typology of preferences for participation in healthcare decision making. Soc Sci Med 2006; 63: 1158–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Caress AL, Luker K, Woodcock A, et al. A qualitative exploration of treatment decision-making role preference in adult asthma patients. Health Expect 2002; 5(3): 223–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Henshaw EJ, Flynn HA, Himle JA, et al. Patient preferences for clinician interactional style in treatment of perinatal depression. Qual Health Res 2011; 21(7): 936–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gooberman-Hill R, Sansom A, Sanders C, et al. Unstated factors in orthopaedic decision-making: a qualitative study. BMC Musculoskeletal Dis 2010; 11: 213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sansom A, Donovan J, Sanders C, et al. Routes to total joint replacement: patients and clinicians’ perceptions of need. Arthrit Care Res 2010; 62(9): 1252–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hudak PL, Armstrong K, Braddock C, et al. Older patients’ unexpressed concerns about orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 1427–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Stivers T. Prescribing under pressure: parent-physician conversations and antibiotics (Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Volker DL, Wu H-L. Cancer patients’ preferences for control at the end of life. Qual Health Res 2011; 21(12): 1618–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Thomas C, Morris SM, Clard D. Place of death: preferences among cancer patients and their carers. Soc Sci Med 2004; 58(12): 2431–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Bate P, Robert G. Bringing user experience to healthcare improvement: the concepts, methods and practices of experience-based design. Oxford/New York: Radcliffe Publishing, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  45. Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Eco 2012; 21(6): 730–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Turner-Bowker DM, Saris-Baglama RN, DeRosa MA, et al. Using qualitative research to inform the development of a comprehensive outcomes assessment for asthma. Patient 2009; 2(4): 269–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Deal LS, Williams VSL, Fehnel SE, et al. Development of an electronic daily uterine fibroid symptom diary. Patient 2011; 4(1): 31–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Plano Clark VL. The adoption and practice of mixed methods: US trends in federally funded health-related research. Qualitative Inquiry 2010; 16(6): 428–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: Sage, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  50. Creswell JW, Klassen AC, Plano Clark VL, et al. Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. US Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, 2011 [online]. Available from URL: http://obssr.od.nih.gov/mixed_methods_research/ [Accessed 2012 Jul 18]

  51. Hansen HP, Draborg E, Kristensen FB. Exploring qualitative research synthesis: the role of patients’ perspectives in health policy design and decision making. Patient 2011; 4(3): 143–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Dixon Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, et al. The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13(3): 223–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Dixon-Woods M, Sutton A, Shaw R, et al. Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007; 12(1): 42–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making: the pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 780–1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. McIntyre A. Participatory action research: qualitative research methods series 52. Los Angeles (CA): Sage, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  56. Davies C, Wetherell M, Barnett E. Citizens at the centre: deliberative participation in health care decisions. Bristol: Policy Press, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  57. Oliver S, Clarke-Jones L, Rees R, et al. Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach. Health Technology Assess 2004; 8(15): 1–148, III-IV

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Rachael Gooberman-Hill’s current position is supported via an independent program of research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research funding scheme (RP-PG-0407-10070). The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the UK NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Wesbury-on-Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK

    Rachael Gooberman-Hill

Authors
  1. Rachael Gooberman-Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachael Gooberman-Hill.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gooberman-Hill, R. Qualitative Approaches to Understanding Patient Preferences. Patient-Patient-Centered-Outcome-Res 5, 215–223 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262494

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03262494

Keywords

Search

Navigation