title: A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Evidence synthesis has seen major methodological advances in reducing uncertainty and estimating the sizes of the effects. Much less is known about how to assess the relative value of different outcomes.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To identify studies that assessed preferences for outcomes in health conditions.
  
  
  METHODS
  
  
  
  METHODS
  we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library in February 2014.
  
  
  METHODS
  eligible studies investigated preferences of patients, family members, the general population or healthcare professionals for health outcomes. The intention of this review was to include studies which focus on theoretical alternatives; studies which assessed preferences for distinct treatments were excluded.
  
  
  METHODS
  study characteristics as study objective, health condition, participants, elicitation method, and outcomes assessed in the study were extracted.
  
  
  RESULTS
  One hundred and twenty-four studies were identified and categorized into four groups: (1) multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (n = 71), (2) rating or ranking (n = 25), (3) utility eliciting (n = 5) and (4) studies comparing different methods (n = 23). The number of outcomes assessed by method group varied. The comparison of different methods or subgroups within one study often resulted in different hierarchies of outcomes.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A dominant method most suitable for application in evidence syntheses was not identified. As preferences of patients differ from those of other stakeholders (especially medical professionals), the choice of the group to be questioned is consequential. Further research needs to focus on validity and applicability of the identified methods.
authors.affiliation: Department of Epidemiology & International Public Health, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.|Department of Health Information, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG), Köln, Germany.
authors.forename: Inger M
authors.initials: IM
authors.lastname: Janssen
authors.affiliation: Department of Health Services Research, Institute for Public Health and Nursing Science, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
authors.forename: Ansgar
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Gerhardus
authors.affiliation: Department of Non-Drug Interventions, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG), Köln, Germany.
authors.forename: Milly A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Schröer-Günther
authors.affiliation: Department of Non-Drug Interventions, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG), Köln, Germany.
authors.forename: Fülöp
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Scheibler
mesh_terms: D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D003695:Delivery of Health Care; D006282:Health Personnel; D006801:Humans; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods*
keywords: evidence synthesis; health interventions; patient perspective; preference assessment; prioritising outcomes; review