Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31565784›Full record

ArticleThe patient2020

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies.

Caroline M Vass, Niall J Davison, Geert Vander Stichele, Katherine Payne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

Caroline M VassManchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6385-2812
Niall J DavisonManchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9447-0825
Geert Vander SticheleMindBytes, Ghent, Belgium.
Katherine PayneManchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Katherine.payne@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3938-4350

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K015346/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline survey-based methods are increasingly used to elicit preferences for healthcare. This digitization creates an opportunity for interactive survey elements, potentially improving respondents' understanding and/or engagement.

objectiveOur objective was to understand whether, and how, training materials in a survey influenced stated preferences.

methodsAn online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit public preferences for a new targeted approach to prescribing biologics ("biologic calculator") for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with conventional prescribing. The DCE presented three alternatives, two biologic calculators and a conventional approach (opt out), described by five attributes: delay to treatment, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, infection risk, and cost saving to the national health service. Respondents were randomized to receive training materials as plain text or an animated storyline. Training materials contained information about RA and approaches to treatment and described the biologic calculator. Background questions included sociodemographics and self-reported measures of task difficulty and attribute non-attendance. DCE data were analyzed using conditional and heteroskedastic conditional logit (HCL) models.

resultsIn total, 300 respondents completed the DCE, receiving either plain text (n = 158) or the animated storyline (n = 142). The HCL showed the estimated coefficients for all attributes aligned with a priori expectations and were statistically significant. The scale term was statistically significant, indicating that respondents who received plain-text materials had more random choices. Further tests suggested preference homogeneity after accounting for differences in scale.

conclusionsUsing animated training materials did not change the preferences of respondents, but they appeared to improve choice consistency, potentially allowing researchers to include more complex designs with increased numbers of attributes, levels, alternatives or choice sets.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidAudiovisual AidsBiological ProductsCosts and Cost AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPatient PreferenceSocioeconomic FactorsAntirheumatic AgentsBiological Products

Identifiers

PMID31565784
PMCPMC7075825

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.