Dataset Information

Using Best-Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Best-worst scaling (BWS) is becoming increasingly popular to elicit preferences in health care. However, little is known about current practice and trends in the use of BWS in health care. This study aimed to identify, review and critically appraise BWS in health care, and to identify trends over time in key aspects of BWS.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted, using Medline (via Pubmed) and EMBASE to identify all English-language BWS studies published up until April 2016. Using a predefined extraction form, two reviewers independently selected articles and critically appraised the study quality, using the Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance (PREFS) checklist. Trends over time periods (?2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015) were assessed further.

Results

A total of 62 BWS studies were identified, of which 26 were BWS object case studies, 29 were BWS profile case studies and seven were BWS multi-profile case studies. About two thirds of the studies were performed in the last 2 years. Decreasing sample sizes and decreasing numbers of factors in BWS object case studies, as well as use of less complicated analytical methods, were observed in recent studies. The quality of the BWS studies was generally acceptable according to the PREFS checklist, except that most studies did not indicate whether the responders were similar to the non-responders.

Conclusion

Use of BWS object case and BWS profile case has drastically increased in health care, especially in the last 2 years. In contrast with previous discrete-choice experiment reviews, there is increasing use of less sophisticated analytical methods.

SUBMITTER: Cheung KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5110583 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using Best-Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care.

Cheung Kei Long KL Wijnen Ben F M BF Hollin Ilene L IL Janssen Ellen M EM Bridges John F JF Evers Silvia M A A SM Hiligsmann Mickael M

PharmacoEconomics 20161201 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Best-worst scaling (BWS) is becoming increasingly popular to elicit preferences in health care. However, little is known about current practice and trends in the use of BWS in health care. This study aimed to identify, review and critically appraise BWS in health care, and to identify trends over time in key aspects of BWS.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review was conducted, using Medline (via Pubmed) and EMBASE to identify all English-language BWS studies published up until A ...[more]

PMID: 27402349

Similar Datasets

Project description:Food safety is a global public health issue, which often arises from asymmetric information between consumers and suppliers. With the development of information technology in human life, building a food traceability information sharing platform is viewed as one of the best ways to overcome the trust crisis and resolve the problem of information asymmetry in China. However, among the myriad information available from the food supply chain, there is a lack of knowledge on consumer preference. Based on the best-worst scaling approach, this paper investigated consumer preferences for vegetable, pork, and dairy product traceability information. Specifically, this paper measured the relative importance that consumers place on the traceable information. The results indicate that consumers have varying priorities for information in different cases. "Pesticide/veterinary use," "picking/slaughtering date," and "fertilizer/feed use" are the most preferred traceable information for Chinese consumers in the case of vegetables, while "picking/slaughtering date" and "history of illness and taking protective measures" are the most preferred information in the case of pork. In the case of dairy products, consumers prefer "processing information," "environmental information of the origin," and "traceable tag certification information" most. The results of this study call for the direct involvement of the Chinese government in the food safety information sharing system as following. First, given consumers' diverse preferences, different types of traceable information should be recorded into the information sharing platform depending on food types. Second, the government could promote the step-by-step construction of such a platform based on the priority of consumers' preferences. Third, new technology should be applied to guarantee the reliability of traceable information. Finally, local preferences in terms of the way consumers receive and understand information should be taken into consideration.

Project description:Epilepsy is a common, serious condition. Fortunately, seizure risk decreases with increasing seizure-free time on antiseizure medications (ASMs). Eventually, patients may consider whether to stop ASMs, which requires weighing treatment benefit versus burden. We developed a questionnaire to quantify patient preferences relevant to ASM decision-making. Respondents rated how concerning they would finding relevant items (e.g., seizure risks, side effects, cost) on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0-100) and then repeatedly chose the most and least concerning item from subsets (best-worst scaling, BWS). We pretested with neurologists, then recruited adults with epilepsy who were seizure-free at least one year. Primary outcomes were recruitment rate, and qualitative and Likert-based feedback. Secondary outcomes included VAS ratings and best-minus-worst scores. Thirty-one of 60 (52%) contacted patients completed the study. Most patients felt VAS questions were clear (28; 90%), easy to use (27; 87%), and assessed preferences well (25; 83%). Corresponding results for BWS questions were 27 (87%), 29 (97%), and 23 (77%). Physicians suggested adding a 'warmup' question showing a completed example and simplifying terminology. Patients suggested ways to clarify instructions. Cost, inconvenience of taking medication, and laboratory monitoring were the least concerning items. Cognitive side effects and a 50% seizure risk in the next year were the most concerning items. Twelve (39%) of patients made at least one 'inconsistent choice' for example ranking a higher seizure risk as lower concern compared with a lower seizure risk, though 'inconsistent choices' represented only 3% of all question blocks. Our recruitment rate was favorable, most patients agreed the survey was clear, and we describe areas for improvement. 'Inconsistent' responses may lead us to collapse seizure probability items into a single 'seizure' category. Evidence regarding how patients weigh benefits and harms may inform care and guideline development.

Project description:PurposeTo quantify patients' preferences for glaucoma outcomes and use this information to prioritize outcomes that are important to patients.DesignA cross-sectional study using best-worst scaling object case (BWS).ParticipantsTwo hundred seventy-four participants newly diagnosed with ocular hypertension or mild to moderate open angle glaucoma from three private practices and one academic medical center in the United States.MethodsWe designed a preference-elicitation survey based on findings from 25 semi-structured, qualitative interviews with patients with glaucoma (reported elsewhere). The survey asked participants to rate the importance of 13 glaucoma outcomes on a Likert scale as a warm-up exercise followed by completion of 13 BWS tasks. For each task, we presented participants a subset of four outcomes from the possible thirteen, and participants chose the most important and least important outcome. Outcomes included in the survey pertain to maintaining ability to perform vision-dependent activities of daily living (e.g., driving), maintaining visual function and perception (e.g., depth perception), minimizing need to take glaucoma drops, not experiencing ocular surface symptoms (e.g., red eyes, teary eyes), and having adequate control of intraocular pressure (IOP). We administered the survey online and analyzed response patterns using conditional logistic regression to determine the relative importance of different outcomes.Main outcomeOrdinal ranking of glaucoma outcomes based on preference weights.ResultsBetween September 1, 2017 and February 28, 2018, we invited 1035 patients to complete our survey, among whom 274 (26%) responded. Most participants were older than 65 years of age (146/274, 53%) and currently on IOP-lowering drops (179/274, 65%). Participants identified that outcomes with the largest relative importance weight were having "adequate IOP control" and ability to "drive a car during the day," and the outcomes with the smallest relative importance weights were "maintaining appearance of the eye" and "reducing the number of IOP-lowering drops".ConclusionsDetermining the relative importance of glaucoma outcomes to patients can help researchers design studies that may better inform clinical and regulatory decision-making. Although IOP is an outcome that researchers often measure in glaucoma clinical trials, patients also prioritized outcomes related to the ability to perform vision-dependent activities such as driving.

Project description:BackgroundOlder people with hypertension and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) receive complex treatments and face challenging trade-offs. Patients' preferences for different health outcomes can impact multiple treatment decisions. Since evidence about outcome preferences is especially scarce among people with MCC our aim was to elicit preferences of people with MCC for outcomes related to hypertension, and to determine how these outcomes should be weighed when benefits and harms are assessed for patient-centered clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.MethodsWe sent a best-worst scaling preference survey to a random sample identified from a primary care network of Kaiser Permanente (Colorado, USA). The sample included individuals age 60 or greater with hypertension and at least two other chronic conditions. We assessed average ranking of patient-important outcomes using conditional logit regression (stroke, heart attack, heart failure, dialysis, cognitive impairment, chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, fainting, injurious falls, low blood pressure with dizziness, treatment burden) and studied variation across individuals.ResultsOf 450 invited participants, 217 (48%) completed the survey, and we excluded 10 respondents who had more than two missing choices, resulting in a final sample of 207 respondents. Participants ranked stroke as the most worrisome outcome and treatment burden as the least worrisome outcome (conditional logit parameters: 3.19 (standard error 0.09) for stroke, 0 for treatment burden). None of the outcomes were always chosen as the most or least worrisome by more than 25% of respondents, indicating that all outcomes were somewhat worrisome to respondents. Predefined subgroup analyses according to age, self-reported life-expectancy, degree of comorbidity, number of medications and antihypertensive treatment did not reveal meaningful differences.ConclusionsAlthough some outcomes were more worrisome to patients than others, our results indicate that none of the outcomes should be disregarded for clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.

Project description:Background and objectiveBest-worst scaling is a theory-driven method that can be used to prioritize objects in health. We sought to characterize all studies of best-worst scaling to prioritize objects in health, to assess trends of using best-worst scaling in prioritization over time, and to assess the relationship between a legacy measure of quality (PREFS) and a novel assessment of subjective quality and policy relevance.MethodsA systematic review identified studies published through to the end of 2021 that applied best-worst scaling to study priorities in health (PROSPERO CRD42020209745), updating a prior review published in 2016. The PubMed, EBSCOhost, Embase, Scopus, APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were used and were supplemented by a hand search. Data describing the application, development, design, administration/analysis, quality, and policy relevance were summarized and we tested for trends by comparing articles before and after 1 January, 2017. Multivariate statistics were then used to assess the relationships between PREFS, subjective quality, policy relevance, and other possible indicators.ResultsFrom a total of 2826 unique papers identified, 165 best-worst scaling studies were included in this review. Applications of best-worst scaling to study priorities in health have continued to grow (p < 0.01) and are now used in all regions of the world, most often to study the priorities of patients/consumers (67%). Several key trends can be observed over time: increased use of pretesting (p < 0.05); increased use of online administration (p < 0.01), and decreased use of paper self-administered surveys (p = 0.02); increased use of heterogeneity analysis (p = 0.02); an increase in having a clearly stated purpose (p < 0.01); and a decrease in comparing respondents to non-respondents (p = 0.01). The average sample size has more than doubled, from 228 to 472 respondents, but formal sample size justifications remain low (5.3%) and unchanged over time (p = 0.68). While the average PREFS score remained unchanged at 3.1/5, both subjective quality and policy relevance trended up, but changes were not statistically significant (p = 0.06 and p = 0.13). Most of the variation in subjective quality was driven by PREFS (R2 = 0.42), but it was also positively assosciated with policy relevance, heterogeneity analysis, and using a balanced incomplete block design, and was negatively associated with not using developmental methods and an increasing sample size.ConclusionsUsing best-worst scaling to prioritize objects is now commonly used around the world to assess the priorities of patients and other stakeholders in health. Best practices are clearly emerging for best-worst scaling. Although legacy measures (PREFS) to measure study quality are reasonable, there may need to be new tools to assess both study quality and policy relevance.

Dataset Information

Using Best-Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Using Best-Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets