Dataset Information

Investigating the complementary value of discrete choice experiments for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research: a questionnaire survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The potential barriers and facilitators to change should guide the choice of implementation strategy. Implementation researchers believe that existing methods for the evaluation of potential barriers and facilitators are not satisfactory. Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are relatively new in the health care sector to investigate preferences, and may be of value in the field of implementation research. The objective of our study was to investigate the complementary value of DCE for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research.

Methods

Clinical subject was the implementation of the guideline for breast cancer surgery in day care. We identified 17 potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of this guideline. We used a traditional questionnaire that was made up of statements about the potential barriers and facilitators. Respondents answered 17 statements on a five-point scale ranging from one (fully disagree) to five (fully agree). The potential barriers and facilitators were included in the DCE as decision attributes. Data were gathered among anaesthesiologists, surgical oncologists, and breast care nurses by means of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire.

Results

The overall response was 10%. The most striking finding was that the responses to the traditional questionnaire hardly differentiated between barriers. Forty-seven percent of the respondents thought that DCE is an inappropriate method. These respondents considered DCE too difficult and too time-consuming. Unlike the traditional questionnaire, the results of a DCE provide implementation researchers and clinicians with a relative attribute importance ranking that can be used to prioritize potential barriers and facilitators to change, and hence to better fine-tune the implementation strategies to the specific problems and challenges of a particular implementation process.

Conclusion

The results of our DCE and traditional questionnaire would probably lead to different implementation strategies. Although there is no 'gold standard' for prioritising potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of change, theoretically, DCE would be the method of choice. However, the feasibility of using DCE was less favourable. Further empirical applications should investigate whether DCE can really make a valuable contribution to the implementation science.

SUBMITTER: van Helvoort-Postulart D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2654421 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Investigating the complementary value of discrete choice experiments for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research: a questionnaire survey.

van Helvoort-Postulart Debby D van der Weijden Trudy T Dellaert Benedict G C BG de Kok Mascha M von Meyenfeldt Maarten F MF Dirksen Carmen D CD

Implementation science : IS 20090301

<h4>Background</h4>The potential barriers and facilitators to change should guide the choice of implementation strategy. Implementation researchers believe that existing methods for the evaluation of potential barriers and facilitators are not satisfactory. Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are relatively new in the health care sector to investigate preferences, and may be of value in the field of implementation research. The objective of our study was to investigate the complementary value of D ...[more]

PMID: 19250555

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis study reviews simulation studies of discrete choice experiments to determine (i) how survey design features affect statistical efficiency, (ii) and to appraise their reporting quality.OutcomesStatistical efficiency was measured using relative design (D-) efficiency, D-optimality, or D-error.MethodsFor this systematic survey, we searched Journal Storage (JSTOR), Since Direct, PubMed, and OVID which included a search within EMBASE. Searches were conducted up to year 2016 for simulation studies investigating the impact of DCE design features on statistical efficiency. Studies were screened and data were extracted independently and in duplicate. Results for each included study were summarized by design characteristic. Previously developed criteria for reporting quality of simulation studies were also adapted and applied to each included study.ResultsOf 371 potentially relevant studies, 9 were found to be eligible, with several varying in study objectives. Statistical efficiency improved when increasing the number of choice tasks or alternatives; decreasing the number of attributes, attribute levels; using an unrestricted continuous "manipulator" attribute; using model-based approaches with covariates incorporating response behaviour; using sampling approaches that incorporate previous knowledge of response behaviour; incorporating heterogeneity in a model-based design; correctly specifying Bayesian priors; minimizing parameter prior variances; and using an appropriate method to create the DCE design for the research question. The simulation studies performed well in terms of reporting quality. Improvement is needed in regards to clearly specifying study objectives, number of failures, random number generators, starting seeds, and the software used.ConclusionThese results identify the best approaches to structure a DCE. An investigator can manipulate design characteristics to help reduce response burden and increase statistical efficiency. Since studies varied in their objectives, conclusions were made on several design characteristics, however, the validity of each conclusion was limited. Further research should be conducted to explore all conclusions in various design settings and scenarios. Additional reviews to explore other statistical efficiency outcomes and databases can also be performed to enhance the conclusions identified from this review.

Project description:IntroductionDespite the recognised importance of participant understanding for valid and reliable discrete choice experiment (DCE) results, there has been limited assessment of whether, and how, people understand DCEs, and how 'understanding' is conceptualised in DCEs applied to a health context.ObjectivesOur aim was to identify how participant understanding is conceptualised in the DCE literature in a health context. Our research questions addressed how participant understanding is defined, measured, and used.MethodsSearches were conducted (June 2019) in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Econlit databases, as well as hand searching. Search terms were based on previous DCE systematic reviews, with additional understanding keywords used in a proximity-based search strategy. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed journal articles in the field of health, related to DCE or best-worst scaling type 3 (BWS3) studies, and reporting some consideration or assessment of participant understanding. A descriptive analytical approach was used to chart relevant data from each study, including publication year, country, clinical area, subject group, sample size, study design, numbers of attributes, levels and choice sets, definition of understanding, how understanding was tested, results of the understanding tests, and how the information about understanding was used. Each study was categorised based on how understanding was conceptualised and used within the study.ResultsOf 306 potentially eligible articles identified, 31 were excluded based on titles and abstracts, and 200 were excluded on full-text review, resulting in 75 included studies. Three categories of study were identified: applied DCEs (n = 52), pretesting studies (n = 7) and studies of understanding (n = 16). Typically, understanding was defined in relation to either the choice context, such as attribute terminology, or the concept of choosing. Very few studies considered respondents' engagement as a component of understanding. Understanding was measured primarily through qualitative pretesting, rationality or validity tests included in the survey, and participant self-report, however reporting and use of the results of these methods was inconsistent.ConclusionsThose conducting or using health DCEs should carefully select, justify, and report the measurement and potential impact of participant understanding in their specific choice context. There remains scope for research into the different components of participant understanding, particularly related to engagement, the impact of participant understanding on DCE validity and reliability, the best measures of understanding, and methods to maximise participant understanding.

Project description:BackgroundOne of the key strategies to successful implementation of effective health-related interventions is targeting improvements in stakeholder engagement. The discrete choice experiment (DCE) is a stated preference technique for eliciting individual preferences over hypothetical alternative scenarios that is increasingly being used in health-related applications. DCEs are a dynamic approach to systematically measure health preferences which can be applied in enhancing stakeholder engagement. However, a knowledge gap exists in characterizing the extent to which DCEs are used in implementation science.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search (up to December 2016) of the English literature to identify and describe the use of DCEs in engaging stakeholders as an implementation strategy. We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Econlit, PsychINFO, and the CINAHL using mesh terms. Studies were categorized according to application type, stakeholder(s), healthcare setting, and implementation outcome.ResultsSeventy-five publications were selected for analysis in this systematic review. Studies were categorized by application type: (1) characterizing demand for therapies and treatment technologies (n = 32), (2) comparing implementation strategies (n = 22), (3) incentivizing workforce participation (n = 11), and (4) prioritizing interventions (n = 10). Stakeholders included providers (n = 27), patients (n = 25), caregivers (n = 5), and administrators (n = 2). The remaining studies (n = 16) engaged multiple stakeholders (i.e., combination of patients, caregivers, providers, and/or administrators). The following implementation outcomes were discussed: acceptability (n = 75), appropriateness (n = 34), adoption (n = 19), feasibility (n = 16), and fidelity (n = 3).ConclusionsThe number of DCE studies engaging stakeholders as an implementation strategy has been increasing over the past decade. As DCEs are more widely used as a healthcare assessment tool, there is a wide range of applications for them in stakeholder engagement. The DCE approach could serve as a tool for engaging stakeholders in implementation science.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of a national policy of shielding to safeguard clinically vulnerable patients. To ensure consistent care for high-risk patients with hypertension, NHS England introduced the BP@home initiative to enable patients to self-monitor their blood pressure by providing them with blood pressure monitors. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the initiative based on the experience and perspectives of programme managers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in its implementation in London.Methods and findingsWe conducted five semi-structured focus groups and one individual interview with a total of 20 healthcare professionals involved at different levels and stages in the BP@home initiative across four of the five London Integrated Care Systems (ICSs). All focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically following the Framework Method. Respondents reported being challenged by the lack of adequate IT, human and financial resources to support the substantial additional workload associated with the programme. These issues resulted in and reinforced the differential engagement capacities of PCNs, practices and patients, thus raising equity concerns among respondents. However respondents also identified several facilitators, including the integration of the eligibility criteria into the electronic health record (EHR), especially when combined with the adoption of practice-specific, pragmatic and opportunistic approaches to the onboarding of patients. Respondents also recommended the provision of blood pressure monitors (BPMs) on prescription, additional funding and training based on needs assessment, the incorporation of BP@home into daily practice and simplification of IT tools, and finally the adoption of a person-centred care approach. Contextualised using the second iteration of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), these findings support key evidence-based recommendations to help streamline the implementation of the BP@home initiative in London's primary care setting.ConclusionsPrograms such as BP@Home are likely to become more common in primary care. To successfully support HCPs' aim to care for their hypertensive patients, their implementation must be accompanied by additional financial, human and training resources, as well as supported task-shifting for capacity building. Future studies should explore the perspectives of HCPs based in other parts of the UK as well as patients' experiences with remote monitoring of blood pressure.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the increasing availability of mobile health services, clinical engagement remains minimal. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to identify and weight barriers to and drivers of health app use among health care professionals (HCPs) from the United Kingdom. METHODS:A discrete choice experiment was conducted with 222 HCPs using a web-based survey between March 2019 and June 2019. Participants were recruited to take part via social media and asked to choose their preferred option of 2 hypothetical health apps to prescribe to a hypothetical patient or to prescribe neither. Choices were characterized by differing levels of patient age, cost, published evidence bases, whether they had a National Health Service (NHS) stamp of approval, personal familiarity with the technology, and whether they were recommended by a fellow HCP. The results were analyzed using a mixed logit model, with subgroup analyses to account for heterogeneity. RESULTS:We received 230 responses, a total of 96.5% (n=222/230) of respondents understood the survey task and passed the test of rationality. The median age was between 36 and 45 years, and 62.6% (n=139/222) of the health care providers responding to the survey had previously recommended the use of health apps to patients. Health apps were most likely to be prescribed to patients if they had an NHS stamp of approval or if they were recommended by another HCP (both P<.001). Published studies detailing clinical effectiveness were important (P<.001), but it would take five published studies to have the same impact on prescribing behavior as an NHS stamp of approval and two studies to be as convincing as having used the technology personally. Increasing patient age and costs resulted in significant reductions in digital health prescribing (P<.001), none more so than among allied health professionals. Willingness-to-pay for health apps increased by £124.61 (US $151.14) if an NHS stamp of approval was present and by £29.20 (US $35.42) for each published study. Overall, 8.1% (n=18/222) of respondents were reluctant to use health apps, always choosing the I would prescribe neither option, particularly among older HCPs, nurses, and those who do not use health apps personally. Subgroup analyses revealed significant differences in preferences among HCPs of differing ages and clinical backgrounds. CONCLUSIONS:An NHS stamp of approval, published studies, and recommendations from fellow HCPs are significant facilitators of digital prescribing, whereas increasing costs and patient age are significant barriers to engagement. These findings suggest that demonstrating assurances of health apps and supporting both the dissemination and peer-to-peer recommendation of evidence-based technologies are critical if the NHS is to achieve its long-term digital transformation ambitions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The effects of health interventions are often complex, and it is argued that they comprise more than pure changes in clinical parameters. Aspects of the treatment process, so-called 'benefits beyond health', are often overlooked in the evaluation of health interventions but can be of value to the patients. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to assess patients' preferences and willingness to pay regarding the treatment process and its attributes in patients using acupuncture, homeopathy or general medicine (GM). METHODS:A systematic literature search, six semi-structured interviews and a stakeholder involvement were conducted to determine the attributes of the treatment process. Five process attributes and one cost attribute were used to construct the experimental design of the discrete choice experiment (DCE) (6 × 3), a cross sectional survey method. Patients were recruited by outpatient physicians practicing in Berlin and Munich, Germany. Process attributes were effects-coded. Data were analyzed in a conditional logit regression. RESULTS:Data from 263 patients were analyzed. DCE results showed that the treatment process attributes 'active listening' and 'time' were most relevant to all patients. Preferences for the attributes 'holistic treatment' (more relevant to the acupuncture and homeopathy groups) and 'information' (more relevant to the GM group) seemed to differ slightly between the groups. Willingness-to-pay values were higher in the acupuncture and homeopathy groups. CONCLUSIONS:The time physicians take and the extent to which they listen attentively are most important and are equally important to all patients. These results may contribute to the debate about more patient-centered healthcare. They support a strengthening of medical consultations in the German healthcare system. We suggest giving physicians the opportunity to spend more time with their patients, which may be achieved by changing the general conditions of remuneration (e.g., improved reimbursement of medical consultations). GERMAN CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTER:DRKS00013160.

Dataset Information

Investigating the complementary value of discrete choice experiments for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research: a questionnaire survey.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Investigating the complementary value of discrete choice experiments for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research: a questionnaire survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets