Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28061040›Full record

SynthesisMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2017

The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments.

Caroline Vass, Dan Rigby, Katherine Payne

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Caroline VassManchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, UK (CV, KP).
Dan RigbyDepartment of Economics, University of Manchester, UK (DR).
Katherine PayneManchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, UK (CV, KP).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of qualitative research (QR) methods is recommended as good practice in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). This study investigated the use and reporting of QR to inform the design and/or interpretation of healthcare-related DCEs and explored the perceived usefulness of such methods.

methodsDCEs were identified from a systematic search of the MEDLINE database. Studies were classified by the quantity of QR reported (none, basic, or extensive). Authors ( n = 91) of papers reporting the use of QR were invited to complete an online survey eliciting their views about using the methods.

resultsA total of 254 healthcare DCEs were included in the review; of these, 111 (44%) did not report using any qualitative methods; 114 (45%) reported "basic" information; and 29 (11%) reported or cited "extensive" use of qualitative methods. Studies reporting the use of qualitative methods used them to select attributes and/or levels ( n = 95; 66%) and/or pilot the DCE survey ( n = 26; 18%). Popular qualitative methods included focus groups ( n = 63; 44%) and interviews ( n = 109; 76%). Forty-four studies (31%) reported the analytical approach, with content ( n = 10; 7%) and framework analysis ( n = 5; 4%) most commonly reported. The survey identified that all responding authors ( n = 50; 100%) found that qualitative methods added value to their DCE study, but many ( n = 22; 44%) reported that journals were uninterested in the reporting of QR results.

conclusionsDespite recommendations that QR methods be used alongside DCEs, the use of QR methods is not consistently reported. The lack of reporting risks the inference that QR methods are of little use in DCE research, contradicting practitioners' assessments. Explicit guidelines would enable more clarity and consistency in reporting, and journals should facilitate such reporting via online supplementary materials.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient PreferenceQualitative ResearchResearch DesignHumansdiscrete choice experimentqualitative researchsurveysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28061040
PMCPMC5367554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.