{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,9]],"date-time":"2026-10-09T01:03:15Z","timestamp":1791507795220,"version":"4.3.4"},"reference-count":42,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2022,1,14]],"date-time":"2022-01-14T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1642118400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2022,1,14]],"date-time":"2022-01-14T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1642118400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"name":"Private Universit\u00e4t Witten\/Herdecke gGmbH"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["BMC Health Serv Res"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2022,12]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>To be able to make informed choices based on their individual preferences, patients need to be adequately informed about treatment options and their potential outcomes. This implies that studies measure the effects of care based on parameters that are relevant to patients. In a previous scoping review, we found a wide variety of supposedly patient-relevant parameters that equally addressed processes and outcomes of care. We were unable to identify a consistent understanding of patient relevance and therefore aimed to develop an empirically based concept including a generic set of patient-relevant parameters. As a first step we evaluated the process and outcome parameters identified in the scoping review from the patients\u2019 perspective.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>We conducted a cross-sectional survey among German general practice patients. Ten research practices of Witten\/Herdecke University supported the study. During a two-week period in the fall of 2020, patients willing to participate self-administered a short questionnaire. It evaluated the relevance of the 32\u00a0parameters identified in the scoping review on a 5-point Likert scale and offered a free-text field for additional parameters. These free-text answers were inductively categorized by two researchers. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Bivariate analyses were performed to determine whether there are any correlations between rating a parameter as highly relevant and patients\u2019 characteristics.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Data from 299\u00a0patients were eligible for analysis. All outcomes except \u2018sexuality\u2019 and \u2018frequency of healthcare service utilization\u2019 were rated important. \u2018Confidence in therapy\u2019 was rated most important, followed by \u2018prevention of comorbidity\u2019 and \u2018mobility\u2019. Relevance ratings of five parameters were associated with patients\u2019 age and gender, but not with their chronic status. The free-text analysis revealed 15\u00a0additional parameters, 12\u00a0of which addressed processes of care, i.e., \u2018enough time in physician consultation\u2019.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Patients attach great value to parameters addressing processes of care. It appears as though the way in which patients experience the care process is not less relevant than what comes of it. Relevance ratings were not associated with chronic status, but few parameters were gender- and age-related.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Trial registration<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative, registration number: 1685.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1186\/s12913-021-07437-6","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2022,1,14]],"date-time":"2022-01-14T22:02:27Z","timestamp":1642197747000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":4,"title":["Patients\u2019 perspective on supposedly patient-relevant process and outcome parameters: a cross-sectional survey within the \u2018PRO patients study\u2019"],"prefix":"10.1186","volume":"22","author":[{"given":"Christine","family":"Kersting","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Julia","family":"H\u00fclsmann","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Klaus","family":"Weckbecker","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Achim","family":"Mortsiefer","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,1,14]]},"reference":[{"key":"7437_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"15","DOI":"10.1111\/jgs.13866","volume":"64","author":"American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Person-Centered Care","year":"2016","unstructured":"American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Person-Centered Care. Person-Centered Care: A Definition and Essential Elements. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64:15\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/jgs.13866.","journal-title":"J Am Geriatr Soc"},{"key":"7437_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1361","DOI":"10.1007\/s11606-012-2077-6","volume":"27","author":"G Elwyn","year":"2012","unstructured":"Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1361\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11606-012-2077-6.","journal-title":"J Gen Intern Med"},{"key":"7437_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2543","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.299.21.2543","volume":"299","author":"GY Gandhi","year":"2008","unstructured":"Gandhi GY, Murad MH, Fujiyoshi A, Mullan RJ, Flynn DN, Elamin MB, et al. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA. 2008;299:2543\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1001\/jama.299.21.2543.","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"key":"7437_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"86","DOI":"10.1503\/cjs.010616","volume":"60","author":"S Adie","year":"2017","unstructured":"Adie S, Harris IA, Naylor JM, Mittal R. Are outcomes reported in surgical randomized trials patient-important? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Surg. 2017;60:86\u201393.","journal-title":"Can J Surg"},{"key":"7437_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"28","DOI":"10.1186\/s13613-017-0243-z","volume":"7","author":"S Gaudry","year":"2017","unstructured":"Gaudry S, Messika J, Ricard J-D, Guillo S, Pasquet B, Dubief E, et al. Patient-important outcomes in randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients: A systematic review. Ann Intensive Care. 2017;7:28. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13613-017-0243-z.","journal-title":"Ann Intensive Care"},{"key":"7437_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"596","DOI":"10.1186\/s12913-020-05442-9","volume":"20","author":"C Kersting","year":"2020","unstructured":"Kersting C, Kneer M, Barzel A. Patient-relevant outcomes: What are we talking about? A scoping review to improve conceptual clarity. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:596. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12913-020-05442-9.","journal-title":"BMC Health Serv Res"},{"key":"7437_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1143","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1365-2133.2009.09328.x","volume":"161","author":"C Blome","year":"2009","unstructured":"Blome C, Augustin M, Siepmann D, Phan NQ, Rustenbach SJ, Stander S. Measuring patient-relevant benefits in pruritus treatment: Development and validation of a specific outcomes tool. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161:1143\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1365-2133.2009.09328.x.","journal-title":"Br J Dermatol"},{"key":"7437_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"100","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejvs.2013.10.009","volume":"47","author":"C Blome","year":"2014","unstructured":"Blome C, Augustin M, Heyer K, Knofel J, Cornelsen H, Purwins S, Herberger K. Evaluation of patient-relevant outcomes of lymphedema and lipedema treatment: Development and validation of a new benefit tool. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;47:100\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ejvs.2013.10.009.","journal-title":"Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg"},{"key":"7437_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/nep.13566","author":"Y Cho","year":"2019","unstructured":"Cho Y, Sautenet B, Gutman T, Rangan G, Craig JC, Ong AC, et al. Identifying patient-important outcomes in polycystic kidney disease: An international nominal group technique study. Nephrology (Carlton). 2019. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/nep.13566.","journal-title":"Nephrology (Carlton)"},{"key":"7437_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"401","DOI":"10.1097\/MCC.0000000000000533","volume":"24","author":"VD Dinglas","year":"2018","unstructured":"Dinglas VD, Faraone LN, Needham DM. Understanding patient-important outcomes after critical illness: A synthesis of recent qualitative, empirical, and consensus-related studies. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24:401\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/MCC.0000000000000533.","journal-title":"Curr Opin Crit Care"},{"key":"7437_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"91","DOI":"10.1007\/s40271-015-0128-x","volume":"9","author":"O Eiring","year":"2016","unstructured":"Eiring O, Nylenna M, Nytroen K. Patient-Important Outcomes in the Long-Term Treatment of Bipolar Disorder: A Mixed-Methods Approach Investigating Relative Preferences and a Proposed Taxonomy. Patient. 2016;9:91\u2013102. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s40271-015-0128-x.","journal-title":"Patient"},{"key":"7437_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"35","DOI":"10.1017\/S0266462309090059","volume":"25","author":"ET Kinter","year":"2009","unstructured":"Kinter ET, Schmeding A, Rudolph I, dosReis S, Bridges JFP. Identifying patient-relevant endpoints among individuals with schizophrenia: An application of patient-centered health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:35\u201341. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S0266462309090059.","journal-title":"Int J Technol Assess Health Care"},{"key":"7437_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"184","DOI":"10.1002\/rth2.12195","volume":"3","author":"BA Konkle","year":"2019","unstructured":"Konkle BA, Skinner M, Iorio A. Hemophilia trials in the twenty-first century: Defining patient important outcomes. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2019;3:184\u201392. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/rth2.12195.","journal-title":"Res Pract Thromb Haemost"},{"key":"7437_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1217","DOI":"10.1001\/jamaophthalmol.2018.3456","volume":"136","author":"KB Lindsley","year":"2018","unstructured":"Lindsley KB, Hutfless S, Hawkins BS, Blim JF, Roberts D, Olsen TW, et al. Evaluation of Clinical Questions and Patient-Important Outcomes Associated With the Treatment of Age-Related Macular Degeneration. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136:1217\u201325. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1001\/jamaophthalmol.2018.3456.","journal-title":"JAMA Ophthalmol"},{"key":"7437_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"743","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2010.08.005","volume":"64","author":"MH Murad","year":"2011","unstructured":"Murad MH, Shah ND, van Houten HK, Ziegenfuss JY, Deming JR, Beebe TJ, et al. Individuals with diabetes preferred that future trials use patient-important outcomes and provide pragmatic inferences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:743\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2010.08.005.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"7437_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"232","DOI":"10.1016\/j.yebeh.2017.08.029","volume":"78","author":"R Nabbout","year":"2018","unstructured":"Nabbout R, Auvin S, Chiron C, Irwin J, Mistry A, Bonner N, et al. Development and content validation of a preliminary core set of patient- and caregiver-relevant outcomes for inclusion in a potential composite endpoint for Dravet Syndrome. Epilepsy Behav. 2018;78:232\u201342. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.yebeh.2017.08.029.","journal-title":"Epilepsy Behav"},{"key":"7437_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"640","DOI":"10.1002\/acr.20034","volume":"62","author":"T Sanderson","year":"2010","unstructured":"Sanderson T, Morris M, Calnan M, Richards P, Hewlett S. What outcomes from pharmacologic treatments are important to people with rheumatoid arthritis? Creating the basis of a patient core set. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:640\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/acr.20034.","journal-title":"Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)"},{"key":"7437_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"414","DOI":"10.1002\/nau.22397","volume":"33","author":"VW Sung","year":"2014","unstructured":"Sung VW, Rogers RG, Barber MD, Clark MA. Conceptual framework for patient-important treatment outcomes for pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33:414\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/nau.22397.","journal-title":"Neurourol Urodyn"},{"key":"7437_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1278","DOI":"10.1002\/acr.22824","volume":"68","author":"K van der Elst","year":"2016","unstructured":"van der Elst K, Meyfroidt S, de Cock D, de Groef A, Binnard E, Moons P, et al. Unraveling Patient-Preferred Health and Treatment Outcomes in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016;68:1278\u201387. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/acr.22824.","journal-title":"Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)"},{"key":"7437_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.l352","volume":"364","author":"HA Wilson","year":"2019","unstructured":"Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SGF, Smith S, Alvand A, Jackson WF, et al. Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;364: l352. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.l352.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"7437_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004","volume":"81","author":"A Agarwal","year":"2017","unstructured":"Agarwal A, Johnston BC, Vernooij RWM, Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R, Neumann I, et al. Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;81:3\u201312. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"7437_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"70","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2017.01.006","volume":"84","author":"H Ameur","year":"2017","unstructured":"Ameur H, Ravaud P, Fayard F, Riveros C, Dechartres A. Systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions frequently consider patient-important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:70\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2017.01.006.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"7437_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"61","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2016.12.009","volume":"84","author":"R El Dib","year":"2017","unstructured":"El Dib R, Tikkinen KAO, Akl EA, Gomaa HA, Mustafa RA, Agarwal A, et al. Systematic survey of randomized trials evaluating the impact of alternative diagnostic strategies on patient-important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;84:61\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2016.12.009.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"7437_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"751","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-013-0483-9","volume":"23","author":"N Fayed","year":"2014","unstructured":"Fayed N, de Camargo OK, Elahi I, Dubey A, Fernandes RM, Houtrow A, Cohen E. Patient-important activity and participation outcomes in clinical trials involving children with chronic conditions. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:751\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11136-013-0483-9.","journal-title":"Qual Life Res"},{"key":"7437_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"222","DOI":"10.1111\/jep.12663","volume":"1","author":"Y Fei","year":"2018","unstructured":"Fei Y, Guyatt GH, Alexander PE, El Dib R, Siemieniuk RAC, Vandvik PO, et al. Addition of Ezetimibe to statins for patients at high cardiovascular risk: Systematic review of patient-important outcomes. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;1:222\u201331. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/jep.12663.","journal-title":"J Eval Clin Pract"},{"key":"7437_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/jgs.15921","author":"LE Griffith","year":"2019","unstructured":"Griffith LE, Gilsing A, Mangin D, Patterson C, van den Heuvel E, Sohel N, et al. Multimorbidity Frameworks Impact Prevalence and Relationships with Patient-Important Outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/jgs.15921.","journal-title":"J Am Geriatr Soc"},{"key":"7437_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"528","DOI":"10.1016\/j.zefq.2014.06.015","volume":"108","author":"T Kvitkina","year":"2014","unstructured":"Kvitkina T, Haaf A ten, Reken S, McGauran N, Wieseler B. Patient-relevant outcomes and surrogates in the early benefit assessment of drugs: First experiences [Patientenrelevante Endpunkte und Surrogate in der fruhen Nutzenbewertung von Arzneimitteln: erste Erfahrungen]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014;108:528\u201338. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.zefq.2014.06.015.","journal-title":"Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes"},{"key":"7437_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pmed.1001526","volume":"10","author":"B Wieseler","year":"2013","unstructured":"Wieseler B, Wolfram N, McGauran N, Kerekes MF, Vervolgyi V, Kohlepp P, et al. Completeness of reporting of patient-relevant clinical trial outcomes: Comparison of unpublished clinical study reports with publicly available data. PLoS Med. 2013;10: e1001526. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pmed.1001526.","journal-title":"PLoS Med"},{"key":"7437_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0195460","volume":"13","author":"Y Yordanov","year":"2018","unstructured":"Yordanov Y, Dechartres A, Ravaud P. Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence. PLoS ONE. 2018;13: e0195460. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0195460.","journal-title":"PLoS ONE"},{"key":"7437_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"26","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2021.03.003","volume":"136","author":"O Ciani","year":"2021","unstructured":"Ciani O, Salcher-Konrad M, Meregaglia M, Smith K, Gorst SL, Dodd S, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in core outcome sets targeted overlapping domains but through different instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;136:26\u201336. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2021.03.003.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"7437_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kersting C, Barzel A, Mortsiefer A. Mixed-methods approach to develop an agreed concept on patient relevance: Study protocol for the \u201cPRO patients study.\u201d BMJ Open. 2021;11:e047679.","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2020-047679"},{"key":"7437_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Llewellyn-Thomas HA. Patients\u2019 health-care decision making: a framework for descriptive and experimental investigations. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:101\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0272989X9501500201.","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X9501500201"},{"key":"7437_CR33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"268","DOI":"10.1016\/j.pec.2006.05.002","volume":"63","author":"VA Entwistle","year":"2006","unstructured":"Entwistle VA, Watt IS. Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: the case for a broader conceptual framework. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63:268\u201378. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.pec.2006.05.002.","journal-title":"Patient Educ Couns"},{"key":"7437_CR34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"806","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.39335.541782.AD","volume":"335","author":"E von Elm","year":"2007","unstructured":"von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, G\u00f8tzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335:806\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.39335.541782.AD.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"7437_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"354","DOI":"10.3238\/zfa.2014.0354-0359","volume":"90","author":"A Viehmann","year":"2014","unstructured":"Viehmann A, Thielmann A, Gesenhues S, Weltermann B. Repr\u00e4sentieren akademische Hausarztpraxen die haus\u00e4rztliche Regelversorgung? Eine methodische Ann\u00e4herung. [Do Academic Family Practices Reflect Routine Primary Care? A Methodological Approach]. Z Allg Med. 2014;90:354\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3238\/zfa.2014.0354-0359.","journal-title":"Z Allg Med"},{"issue":"Suppl 1","key":"7437_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e24","DOI":"10.1055\/s-2007-959034","volume":"132","author":"R Bender","year":"2007","unstructured":"Bender R, Lange S, Ziegler A. Wichtige Signifikanztests [Common significance tests]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2007;132(Suppl 1):e24-5. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1055\/s-2007-959034.","journal-title":"Dtsch Med Wochenschr"},{"key":"7437_CR37","first-page":"65","volume":"6","author":"S Holm","year":"1979","unstructured":"Holm S. A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure. Scand J Statist. 1979;6:65\u201370.","journal-title":"Scand J Statist"},{"key":"7437_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"81","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-018-0540-8","volume":"18","author":"M Giacalone","year":"2018","unstructured":"Giacalone M, Agata Z, Cozzucoli PC, Alibrandi A. Bonferroni-Holm and permutation tests to compare health data: methodological and applicative issues. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:81. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12874-018-0540-8.","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol"},{"key":"7437_CR39","volume-title":"The essentials of factor analysis","author":"D Child","year":"2006","unstructured":"Child D. The essentials of factor analysis. 3rd ed. London: Continuum; 2006.","edition":"3"},{"key":"7437_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"159","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0032-1330500","volume":"18","author":"A M\u00fchlbacher","year":"2013","unstructured":"M\u00fchlbacher A, Bethge S, Tockhorn A. Measuring Preferences in Healthcare: Introduction to Discrete-Choice Experiments. Gesundh \u00f6kon Qual manag. 2013;18:159\u201372. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1055\/s-0032-1330500.","journal-title":"Gesundh \u00f6kon Qual manag"},{"key":"7437_CR41","unstructured":"Eurostat. Demography of Europe: Statistics visualized - 2021 Edition. 2021. https:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/eurostat\/cache\/digpub\/demography\/index.html?lang=en."},{"key":"7437_CR42","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"OECD. Chronic conditions. In: OECD, editor. Health at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2021. doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1787\/908b2da3-en.","DOI":"10.1787\/908b2da3-en"}],"container-title":["BMC Health Services Research"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12913-021-07437-6.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s12913-021-07437-6\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12913-021-07437-6.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2022,1,14]],"date-time":"2022-01-14T22:03:19Z","timestamp":1642197799000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12913-021-07437-6"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2022,1,14]]},"references-count":42,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2022,12]]}},"alternative-id":["7437"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12913-021-07437-6","relation":{},"ISSN":["1472-6963"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1472-6963","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2022,1,14]]},"assertion":[{"value":"9 April 2021","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"20 December 2021","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"14 January 2022","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"The \u2018PRO patients study\u2019 was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. It obtained ethical approval from the Ethics Commission of Witten\/Herdecke University (reference number: 156\/2020, date of approval: 08\/26\/2020). Participants received written information and provided informed consent.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethics approval and consent to participate"}},{"value":"All participants provided informed consent for the analysis and publication of data assessed during the cross-sectional survey.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Consent for publication"}},{"value":"The authors declare that they have no competing interests.","order":4,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Competing interests"}}],"article-number":"72"}}