Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40087217›Full record

ArticleThe patient2025

Incorporating Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) Questions into Focus Groups to Improve Understanding of Patient Preferences and Refine BWS Attributes.

Deborah A Marshall, Karen V MacDonald, Nitya Suryaprakash, Raza M Mirza, Maida J Sewitch, Geoffrey C Nguyen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Deborah A MarshallDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Room 3C58 Health Research Innovation Centre (HRIC), 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada. damarsha@ucalgary.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-8467-8008
Karen V MacDonaldDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Room 3C58 Health Research Innovation Centre (HRIC), 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7739-4296
Nitya SuryaprakashDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Room 3C58 Health Research Innovation Centre (HRIC), 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8032-9129
Raza M MirzaFactor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, Institute for Life Course and Aging, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4430-6012
Maida J SewitchCentre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9630-6204
Geoffrey C NguyenDepartment of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital Centre for Inflammatory Bowel Disease, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7083-7429

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveBest-worst scaling (BWS) is a stated preference elicitation method used for prioritizing attributes of healthcare interventions. Best-worst scaling attribute development is commonly based on literature review, qualitative work, and methodological/clinical expert input. There is limited research incorporating BWS in focus groups as part of the attribute development process. We sought to explore how incorporating BWS questions using the list of potential attributes in focus groups could be used to improve understanding of patient preferences and refine the list of potential BWS attributes as part of the attribute development process.

methodsWe administered BWS questions on healthcare priorities for inflammatory bowel disease in five focus groups with Canadian patients with inflammatory bowel disease to (1) understand the "what," "how," and "why" of participant choices and (2) note how participants understand the attributes and the language they use to refine the list of potential BWS attributes. A list of 20 potential attributes was used to generate the BWS questions. We coded most/least important choices ("what") and used a thematic analysis to derive subthemes indicating "how" and "why" participants made their choices. We coded how participants understood the attributes/BWS questions and language used when discussing the attributes.

resultsAcross the 36 participants, the most frequently chosen most/least important attributes were summarized. Three subthemes explaining the "how" and "why" of participant choices were identified: perceived gain; influence of individual experiences; current health state and personal circumstances. Participants identified challenges understanding specific attributes and BWS questions, and provided suggestions for modifications to attribute language/descriptions. Administering BWS questions in focus groups provided: (1) insight into the assumptions participants made when completing the BWS questions; (2) clarity in language and attribute descriptions, and challenges participants had when completing the BWS questions that can be used to refine the list of potential attributes as part of the attribute development process; and (3) understanding of which attributes were most/least important and why to identify potential attributes to remove during the next steps of the attribute development process.

conclusionsBest-worst scaling questions conducted within focus groups can stimulate discussions around relative importance and prioritization of attributes. Through open dialogue, this method can unveil unforeseen responses or identify areas that are unclear and enable a transparent approach to refine the list of potential attributes as part of the attribute development process.

Indexed as

Focus GroupsInflammatory Bowel DiseasesPatient PreferenceAdultAgedCanadaChoice BehaviorComprehensionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

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.