Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27401425›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine2016

Using Best-Worst Scaling to Understand Patient Priorities: A Case Example of Papanicolaou Tests for Homeless Women.

Eve Wittenberg, Monica Bharel, John F P Bridges, Zachary Ward, Linda Weinreb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Eve WittenbergCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts ewittenb@hsph.harvard.edu.
Monica BharelThe Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program, and Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; currently: Department of Public Health, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts.
John F P BridgesDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Zachary WardCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Linda WeinrebDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts.

Funding

Cervical Cancer Screening in Homeless Women: A Discrete Choice ExperimentR21CA164712 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI WITTENBERG, EVE · 2012 to 2013
$369k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA164712
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBest-worst scaling (BWS) is a survey method for assessing individuals' priorities. It identifies the extremes-best and worst items, most and least important factors, biggest and smallest influences-among sets. In this article, we demonstrate an application of BWS in a primary care setting to illustrate its use in identifying patient priorities for services.

methodsWe conducted a BWS survey in 2014 in Boston, Massachusetts, to assess the relative importance of 10 previously identified attributes of Papanicolaou (Pap) testing services among women experiencing homelessness. Women were asked to evaluate 11 sets of 5 attributes of Pap services, and identify which attribute among each set would have the biggest and smallest influence on promoting uptake. We show how frequency analysis can be used to analyze results.

resultsIn all, 165 women participated, a response rate of 72%. We identified the most and least salient influences on encouraging Pap screening based on their frequency of report among our sample, with possible standardized scores ranging from+1.0 (biggest influence) to -1.0 (smallest influence). Most important was the availability of support for issues beyond health (+0.39), while least important was the availability of accommodations for personal hygiene (-0.27).

conclusionsBWS quantifies patient priorities in a manner that is transparent and accessible. It is easily comprehendible by patients and relatively easy to administer. Our application illustrates its use in a vulnerable population, showing that factors beyond those typically provided in health care settings are highly important to women in seeking Pap screening. This approach can be applied to other health care services where prioritization is helpful to guide decisions.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultDecision MakingFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansIll-Housed PersonsMiddle AgedPapanicolaou TestPrimary Health CareSurveys and Questionnairesbest-worst scalingcervical cancerconjoint analysishomelessmethodsstated preferencesvulnerable populations

Identifiers

PMID27401425
PMCPMC4940467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.