bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2020.01.03.893826

What matters to patients?: a timely question for Value Based Care

Hirpa, M.·Woreta, T.·Addis, H.·Kebede, S.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BackgroundOur healthcare system is moving towards patient-centered and value-based care models that prioritize health outcomes that matter to patients. However, little is known about what aspects of care patients would prioritize when presented with choices of desirable attributes and whether these patient priorities differ based on certain demographics. ObjectiveTo assess patients priorities for a range of attributes in ambulatory care consultations across five key health service delivery domains and determine potential associations between patient priorities and certain demographic profiles. MethodsUsing a What Matters to You survey patients ranked in order of importance various choices related to five health service domains (patient-physician relationship, personal responsibility, tests/procedures, medications and cost). Subjects were selected from two Johns Hopkins affiliated primary care clinics and a third gastroenterology subspecialty clinic over a period of 11 months. We calculated the percentage of respondents who selected each quality as their top 1-3 choice. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined demographic characteristics associated with patient priorities. ResultsHumanistic qualities of physicians, leading a healthy lifestyle, shared decision making (SDM) for medications and tests/procedures and knowledge about insurance coverage were the most frequently ranked choices. Privately insured and more educated patients were less likely to rank humanistic qualities highly. Those with younger age, higher educational attainment and private insurance had higher odds of ranking healthy lifestyle as a top choice. Those with more education had higher odds of ranking SDM as a top choice. ConclusionsIdentifying what matters most to patients is useful as we move towards patient-centered and value based care models. Our findings suggest that patients have priorities on qualities they value across key health service domains. Multiple factors including patient demographics can be predictors of these priorities. Elucidating these preferences is a challenging but a valuable step in the right direction.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hirpa, M., Woreta, T., Addis, H., Kebede, S.. 2020-01-06. What matters to patients?: a timely question for Value Based Care. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.03.893826

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2020

Access to Scientific Literature by the Conservation Community

Access to the scientific literature is perceived to be a challenge to the biodiversity conservation community, but actual level of literature access relative to needs has never been assessed globally. We examined this question by surveying the constituency of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a proxy for the conservation community, generating 2,285 responses. Of these respondents, ∼97% need to use the scientific literature in order to support their IUCN-related conservation work, with ∼50% needing to do so at least once per week. The crux of the survey revolved around the question, “How easy is it for you currently to obtain the scientific literature you need to carry out your IUCN-related work?” and revealed that roughly half (49%) of the respondents find it not easy or not at all easy to access scientific literature. We fitted a binary logistic regression model to explore factors predicting ease of literature access. Whether the respondent had institutional literature access (55% do) is the strongest predictor, with region (Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and gender (male) also significant predictors. Approximately 60% of respondents from Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have institutional access compared to ∼50% in Asia and Latin America, and ∼40% in Eastern Europe and in Africa. Nevertheless, accessing free online material is a popular means of accessing literature for both those with and without institutional access. The four journals most frequently mentioned when asked which journal access would deliver the greatest improvements to the respondent’s IUCN-related work were Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Nature, and Science. The majority prefer to read journal articles on screen but prefer to read books in hard copy. Overall, it is apparent that access to the literature is a challenge facing roughly half of the conservation community worldwide.View Full Text

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2020

Interpretative guides for interacting with tissue atlas and digital pathology data using the Minerva browser

The recent development of highly multiplexed tissue imaging promises to substantially accelerate research into basic biology and human disease. Concurrently, histopathology in a clinical setting is undergoing a rapid transition to digital methods. Online tissue atlases involving highly multiplexed images of research and clinical specimens will soon join genomics as a systematic source of information on the molecular basis of disease and therapeutic response. However, even with recent advances in machine learning, experience with anatomic pathology shows that there is no immediate substitute for expert visual review, annotation, and description of tissue images. In this perspective we review the ecosystem of software available for analysis of tissue images and identify a need for interactive guides or "digital docents" that allow experts to help make complex images intelligible. We illustrate this idea using Minerva software and discuss how interactive image guides are being integrated into multi-omic browsers for effective dissemination of atlas data.

scientific communication and education↗