ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2011
Obstetrical outcome valuations by patients, professionals, and laypersons: differences within and between groups using three valuation methods.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature.The patient · 2014Pooled it
- Do we agree on health state outcomes? A review of measurement agreement between time-trade off and other utility measures.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- A New Ethical Framework for Assessing the Unique Challenges of Fetal Therapy Trials.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2022Article
- Variations in Patients' Overall Assessment of Their Health Across and Within Disease Groups Using the EQ-5D Questionnaire: Protocol for a Longitudinal Study in the Swedish National Quality Registers.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Measuring health utility in varying pregnancy contexts among a diverse cohort of pregnant women.Contraception · 2017Article
- A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision-making can be based on treatment preferences of the patient, the doctor, or by guidelines based on lay people's preferences. We compared valuations assigned by three groups: patients, obstetrical care professionals, and laypersons, for health states involving both mother and (unborn) child. Our aim was to compare the valuations of different groups using different valuation methods and complex obstetric health outcome vignettes that involve both maternal and neonatal outcomes.
methodsPatients (n = 24), professionals (n = 30), and laypersons (n = 27) valued the vignettes using three valuation methods: visual analogue scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and discrete choice experimentation (DCE). Each vignette covered five health attributes: maternal health ante partum, time between diagnosis and delivery, process of delivery, maternal outcome, and neonatal outcome. We used feasibility questionnaires, Generalization theory, test-retest reliability and within-group reliability to compare the valuation patterns between groups and methods. We assessed relative weights from each valuation method to test for consistency across groups.
resultsTest-retest reliability was equal across groups, but different across methods: highest for VAS (ICC = 0.61-0.73), intermediate for TTO (ICC = 0.24-0.74) and lowest for DCE (kappa = 0.15-0.37). Within-group reliability was highest in all groups with VAS (ICC = 0.70-0.73), intermediate with DCE (kappa = 0.56-0.76) and lowest with TTO (ICC = 0.20-0.66). Effects of groups were smaller than effects of methods. Differences between groups were largest for severe health states.
conclusionBased on our results, decision making among laypersons should use TTO or DCE; patients should use VAS or TTO.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.