Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17129380›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2006

A pilot Internet "value of health" panel: recruitment, participation and compliance.

Ken Stein, Matthew Dyer, Tania Crabb, Ruairidh Milne, Alison Round, Julie Ratcliffe, John Brazier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The precision of health state valuation by members of the general public using the standard gamble.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2009
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ken SteinPeninsula Technology Assessment Group, Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter, Noy Scott House, Barrack Road, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK. ken.stein@exeter.ac.uk
Matthew Dyer
Tania Crabb
Ruairidh Milne
Alison Round
Julie Ratcliffe
John Brazier

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo pilot using a panel of members of the public to provide preference data via the Internet

methodsA stratified random sample of members of the general public was recruited and familiarized with the standard gamble procedure using an Internet based tool. Health states were periodically presented in "sets" corresponding to different conditions, during the study. The following were described: Recruitment (proportion of people approached who were trained); Participation (a) the proportion of people trained who provided any preferences and (b) the proportion of panel members who contributed to each "set" of values; and Compliance (the proportion, per participant, of preference tasks which were completed). The influence of covariates on these outcomes was investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses.

resultsA panel of 112 people was recruited. 23% of those approached (n = 5,320) responded to the invitation, and 24% of respondents (n = 1,215) were willing to participate (net = 5.5%). However, eventual recruitment rates, following training, were low (2.1% of those approached). Recruitment from areas of high socioeconomic deprivation and among ethnic minority communities was low. Eighteen sets of health state descriptions were considered over 14 months. 74% of panel members carried out at least one valuation task. People from areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation and unmarried people were less likely to participate. An average of 41% of panel members expressed preferences on each set of descriptions. Compliance ranged from 3% to 100%.

conclusionIt is feasible to establish a panel of members of the general public to express preferences on a wide range of health state descriptions using the Internet, although differential recruitment and attrition are important challenges. Particular attention to recruitment and retention in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation and among ethnic minority communities is necessary. Nevertheless, the panel approach to preference measurement using the Internet offers the potential to provide specific utility data in a responsive manner for use in economic evaluations and to address some of the outstanding methodological uncertainties in this field.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthInternetPatient SelectionAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMiddle AgedMinority GroupsPatient ParticipationPilot ProjectsRefusal to ParticipateRisk AssessmentRisk-Taking

Identifiers

PMID17129380
PMCPMC1716763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.