Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of Direct Elicitation of Children’s Preferences for Health States

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 314-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Trafford Crump ◽  
Lauren M. Beverung ◽  
Ryan Lau ◽  
Rita Sieracki ◽  
Mateo Nicholson
Keyword(s):  
Data Extraction ◽  
Direct Methods ◽  
Preference Elicitation ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
English Studies ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
Health States ◽  
Alternative Health ◽  
Elicitation Methods ◽  
Alternative Health Care

Background. Children’s preferences for health states represent an important perspective when comparing the value of alternative health care interventions related to pediatric medicine, and are fundamental to comparative effectiveness research. However, there is debate over whether these preference data can be collected and used. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to establish psychometric properties of eliciting preferences for health states from children using direct methods. Data Sources. Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, EconLit. Study Selection. English studies, published after 1990, were identified using Medical Subject Headings or keywords. Results were reviewed to confirm that the study was based on: 1) a sample of children, and 2) preferences for health states. Data Extraction. Standardized data collection forms were used to record the preference elicitation method used, and any reported evidence regarding the validity, reliability, or feasibility of the method. Data Synthesis. Twenty-six studies were ultimately included in the analysis. The standard gamble and time tradeoff were the most commonly reported direct preference elicitation methods. Seven studies reported validity, four reported reliability, and nine reported feasibility. Of the validity reports, construct validity was assessed most often. Reliability reports typically involved interclass correlation coefficient. For feasibility, four studies reported completion rates. Limitations. The search was limited to four databases and restricted to English studies published after 1990. Only evidence available in published studies were considered; measurement properties may have been tested in pilot or pre-studies but were not published, and are not included in this review. Conclusion. The few studies found through this systematic review demonstrate that there is little empirical evidence on which to judge the use of direct preference elicitation methods with children regarding health states.

Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states

1999 ◽  
Vol 49 (7) ◽  
pp. 943-950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Badia ◽  
Monserrat Roset ◽  
Michael Herdman
Keyword(s):  
Preference Elicitation ◽  
Health States ◽  
Elicitation Methods

Logical Inconsistencies in 3 Preference Elicitation Methods for EQ-5D Health States

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 242-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mônica Viegas Andrade ◽  
Kenya Noronha ◽  
Paul Kind ◽  
Carla de Barros Reis ◽  
Lucas Resende de Carvalho
Keyword(s):  
Preference Elicitation ◽  
Health States ◽  
Elicitation Methods

scholarly journals Eliciting Preferences in Dentistry with Multiattribute Stated Preference Methods: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 326-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Barber ◽  
S. Pavitt ◽  
B. Khambay ◽  
H. Bekker ◽  
D. Meads
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
Stated Preference ◽  
Preference Elicitation ◽  
Health States ◽  
Stated Preference Methods ◽  
The Public ◽  
Elicitation Methods ◽  
Stated Preference Experiments

Background: Preference experiments are used to understand how patients and stakeholders value aspects of health care. These methods are gaining popularity in dentistry, but quality and breadth of use have not been evaluated. Objectives: To describe multiattribute stated preference experiment use in dentistry through illustration and critique of existing studies. Data Sources: Systematic literature search of PubMed, Econlit and Ovid for Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES, and All EBM Reviews, as well as gray literature. Study Eligibility: Multiattribute stated preference experiments eliciting preferences for dental service delivery, treatments, and oral health states from the perspective of patients, the public, and dental professionals. Outcomes of interest were preference weights and marginal rates of substitution. Study selection was independently performed by 2 reviewers. Appraisal: Ten-point checklist published by the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research was used for quality assessment. Synthesis: Descriptive analysis. Results: Searches identified 12 records published between 1999 and 2015, mostly in nondental academic journals. Studies were undertaken in high-income countries in Europe and the United States. The studies aimed to elicit preference for service delivery, treatment, or oral health states from the perspective of the patients, dentists, or the public via discrete choice experiment methods. The quality scores for the studies ranged from 53% to 100%. Limitations: A detailed description and critique of stated preference methods are provided, but it was not possible to provide synthesized preference data. Conclusions: Multiattribute stated preference experiments are increasingly popular, but understanding the methods and outputs is essential for designing and interpreting preference studies to improve patient care. Patient preferences highlight important considerations for decision making during treatment planning. Valuation of health states and estimation of willingness-to-pay are important for resource planning and allocation and economic evaluation. Preference estimates and relative value of attributes for interventions and service delivery inform development and selection of treatments and services (PROSPERO 21.3.17: CRD42017059859). Knowledge Transfer Statement: Understanding patient, professional, and public preferences is fundamental for evidence-based decision making and treatment delivery. Preference elicitation methods can be used to estimate the value given to health states, service delivery, individual treatments, and health outcomes. By describing and appraising the methodology and application of multiattribute stated preference experiments in dentistry, this review provides an essential first step to wider use of well-designed, high-quality preference elicitation methods.

A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE LOTTERY EQUIVALENTS METHOD

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
ADAM OLIVER
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Preference Elicitation ◽  
Health State ◽  
Health States ◽  
Question Mark ◽  
Strength Of Preference ◽  
Highly Educated ◽  
Elicitation Methods

Numerous instruments have been developed to elicit numerical values that represent the strength of preference for different health states. However, relatively few studies have attempted to analyse the reasoning processes that people employ when they are asked to answer questions based on these elicitation methods. The lottery equivalents method is a preference elicitation instrument that has recently received some attention in the literature. This study attempts a qualitative analysis of the use of this instrument on a group of 25 relatively highly educated respondents. For each of three health states considered in the study, a substantial number of respondents refused to trade the chance of survival for a possible improvement in the health state. Therefore, many respondents violated an assumption that is necessary for the lottery equivalents instrument to generate cardinal health state values. These findings place a question mark against the usefulness of the lottery equivalents method, and add weight to the suspicion that ‘preferences’ are constructed according to how questions are framed.

scholarly journals What is the risk of prostate cancer mortality following negative systematic TRUS-guided biopsies? A systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e040965
Author(s):  
Sandra Miriam Kawa ◽  
Signe Benzon Larsen ◽  
John Thomas Helgstrand ◽  
Peter Iversen ◽  
Klaus Brasso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
Prognostic Information ◽  
Prostate Biopsies

ObjectiveTo investigate the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) following initial negative systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsies.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesPubMed and Embase were searched using a string combination with keywords/Medical Subject Headings terms and free text in the search builder. Date of search was 13 April 2020.Study selectionStudies addressing PCSM following initial negative TRUS biopsies. Randomised controlled trials and population-based studies including men with initial negative TRUS biopsies reported in English from 1990 until present were included.Data extractionData extraction was done using a predefined form by two authors independently and compared with confirm data; risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohort studies when applicable.ResultsFour eligible studies were identified. Outcomes were reported differently in the studies as both cumulative incidence and Kaplan-Meier estimates have been used. Regardless of the study differences, all studies reported low estimated incidence of PCSM of 1.8%–5.2% in men with negative TRUS biopsies during the following 10–20 years. Main limitation in all studies was limited follow-up.ConclusionOnly a few studies have investigated the risk of PCSM following initial negative biopsies and all studies included patients before the era of MRI of the prostate. However, the studies point to the fact that the risk of PCSM is low following initial negative TRUS biopsies, and that the level of prostate-specific antigen before biopsies holds prognostic information. This may be considered when advising patients about the need for further diagnostic evaluation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019134548.

scholarly journals Instruments for measuring nursing research competence: a protocol for a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e042325
Author(s):  
Qirong Chen ◽  
Chongmei Huang ◽  
Aimee R Castro ◽  
Siyuan Tang
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Nursing Research ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Research Competence ◽  
Scoping Reviews

IntroductionNursing research competence of nursing personnel has received much attention in recent years, as nursing has developed as both an independent academic discipline and an evidence-based practiing profession. Instruments for appraising nursing research competence are important, as they can be used to assess nursing research competence of the target population, showing changes of this variable over time and measuring the effectiveness of interventions for improving nursing research competence. There is a need to map the current state of the science of the instruments for nursing research competence, and to identify well validated and reliable instruments. This paper describes a protocol for a scoping review to identify, evaluate, compare and summarise the instruments designed to measure nursing research competence.Methods and analysisThe scoping review will be conducted following Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework and Levac et al’s additional recommendations for applying this framework. The scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. The protocol is registered through the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ksh43/). Eight English databases and two Chinese databases will be searched between 1 December 2020 and 31 December 2020 to retrieve manuscripts which include instrument(s) of nursing research competence. The literature screening and data extraction will be conducted by two researchers, independently. A third researcher will be involved when consensus is needed. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology will be used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies on measurement properties of the instruments, as well as the quality of all the instruments identified.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed. We will disseminate the findings through a conference focusing on nursing research competence and publication of the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

scholarly journals Risk of dementia in gout and hyperuricaemia: a meta-analysis of cohort studies

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e041680
Author(s):  
Shu-Yue Pan ◽  
Rui-Juan Cheng ◽  
Zi-Jing Xia ◽  
Qiu-Ping Zhang ◽  
Yi Liu
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Crystal Formation ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

ObjectivesGout, characterised by hyperuricaemia with monosodium urate crystal formation and inflammation, is the most common inflammatory arthritis in adults. Recent studies have found that elevated uric acid levels are related to the occurrence of dementia. We conducted a study to investigate the association between dementia and gout or hyperuricaemia.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.Data sourcesStudies were screened from inception to 28 June 2019 by searching Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases.Eligibility criteriaCohort studies comparing the risk of dementia in patients with gout and hyperuricaemia versus non-gout and non-hyperuricaemia controls were enrolled.Data extraction and analysisTwo reviewers separately selected studies and extracted data using the Medical Subject Headings without restriction on languages or countries. The adjusted HRs were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the stability of the results. Publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s and Begg’s tests. Quality assessment was performed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsFour cohort studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in our meta-analysis. We found that gout and hyperuricaemia did not increase the risk of dementia, with a pooled HR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.28), but might decrease the risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with a pooled HR of 0.78 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.95). There was little evidence of publication bias. Quality assessment of the included studies was high (range: 6–8 points).ConclusionsOur study shows that gout and hyperuricaemia do not increase the risk of dementia. However, gout and hyperuricaemia might have a protective effect against AD. Due to the limited number of research articles, more investigations are needed to demonstrate the potential relationship between dementia and gout or hyperuricaemia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document