Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34661806›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2022

Transforming challenges into opportunities: conducting health preference research during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Manraj N Kaur, Richard L Skolasky, Philip A Powell, Feng Xie, I-Chan Huang, Ayse Kuspinar, John L O'Dwyer, Amy M Cizik, Donna Rowen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. United Kingdom value set for the functional assessment of cancer therapy eight dimension (FACT-8D) preference-based quality of life instrument.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Japanese value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D: A multi-attribute utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    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

9 authors.

Manraj N KaurPatient-Reported Outcomes, Value and Experience (PROVE) Center, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. mkaur17@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1911-0395
Richard L SkolaskyDepartments of Orthopedic Surgery and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Philip A PowellSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Feng XieDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, and Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
I-Chan HuangDepartment of Epidemiology and Cancer Control, and Comprehensive Cancer Center, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.
Ayse KuspinarSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
John L O'DwyerAcademic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Amy M CizikDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Donna RowenSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The disruptions to health research during the COVID-19 pandemic are being recognized globally, and there is a growing need for understanding the pandemic's impact on the health and health preferences of patients, caregivers, and the general public. Ongoing and planned health preference research (HPR) has been affected due to problems associated with recruitment, data collection, and data interpretation. While there are no "one size fits all" solutions, this commentary summarizes the key challenges in HPR within the context of the pandemic and offers pragmatic solutions and directions for future research. We recommend recruitment of a diverse, typically under-represented population in HPR using online, quota-based crowdsourcing platforms, and community partnerships. We foresee emerging evidence on remote, and telephone-based HPR modes of administration, with further studies on the shifts in preferences related to health and healthcare services as a result of the pandemic. We believe that the recalibration of HPR, due to what one would hope is an impermanent change, will permanently change how we conduct HPR in the future.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsHumansQuality of LifeChallengesCOVID-19Data collectionFace-to-face administrationHealth preference researchOnline administrationPandemicPreference elicitationVulnerable people

Identifiers

PMID34661806
PMCPMC8521079

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.