ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025
Perception of non-layperson advisory committee members on the application of a discrete choice experiment instrument to patients and advisory committee members: a qualitative study.
Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the view of nonlayperson committee members on the added value of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) instrument to measure patient and committee member preferences for a health intervention.
methodsNine semistructured interviews were conducted with voting members from two types of advisory committees in Quebec, Canada: one from the Ministry of Health and Social Services, and eight from the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agency. The DCE instrument, administrable to patients (i.e., pregnant women) and committee members, was developed and administered to both groups to measure their preferences about the addition of fetal chromosomal anomalies to a prenatal screening program. A conceptual framework consisting of three dimensions (relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity) was used for data collection and analyses.
resultsCommittee members considered the DCE instrument, when used with both patients and committee members, to be particularly valuable in raising awareness of potential biases. These biases, generated by committee members' interests and disciplinary perspectives, can reduce the importance of the patient perspective in decision making by advisory committees.
conclusionsThis qualitative study provides insight into the perceptions of nonlayperson advisory committee members regarding the added value of a DCE instrument administered to patients and committee members regarding an intervention. Additional studies are required to explore the perceptions of other stakeholders (e.g., managers, patients, and public representatives) regarding the application of DCE and to assess its impact on HTA recommendations regarding the value of new health interventions.
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.