Dataset Information

Using a Factorial Survey to Estimate the Relative Importance of Well-Being Dimensions According to Older People: Insights From a Repeated Survey Experiment in Flanders.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Although it has become standard to include the views of older people when assessing their well-being, most existing methods are ill-suited to estimate the relative importance of well-being dimensions. This article investigates the potential of the factorial survey method to estimate the relative importance of six well-being dimensions (health, income, social relations, leisure, engaging activities, and religion) based on the views of older people themselves.

Research design and methods

We implemented a factorial survey in a repeated survey experiment among 800 older adults in Flanders (the Dutch-speaking northern part of Belgium). We performed several within-sample test-retests to investigate the consistency of the estimated coefficients over time (i.e., temporal reliability). In addition, we tested the feasibility of the factorial survey by studying two indicators of cognitive load: response time and response consistency.

Results

We estimated the relative importance of increases in six well-being dimensions. Increases from the lowest level to the highest level in the dimensions of health, income, and social relations had the highest effect on well-being-followed by leisure, engaging activities, and religion. The results proved to be consistent in most of the test-retest analyses. Furthermore, we found that respondents produced a high level of response consistency within an acceptable amount of response time.

Discussion and implications

The findings suggest that the factorial survey method offers a promising way forward to elicit older people's views on well-being and, hence, in developing tailored policies that matter to them.

SUBMITTER: Van Loon V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9225818 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDiscrete choice experiments (DCE) are commonly used to elicit patient preferences and to determine the relative importance of attributes but can be complex and costly to administer. Simpler methods that measure relative importance exist, such as swing weighting with direct rating (SW-DR), but there is little empirical evidence comparing the two. This study aimed to directly compare attribute relative importance rankings and weights elicited using a DCE and SW-DR.MethodsA total of 307 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in Italy and Belgium completed an online survey assessing preferences for cancer treatment using DCE and SW-DR. The relative importance of the attributes was determined using a random parameter logit model for the DCE and rank order centroid method (ROC) for SW-DR. Differences in relative importance ranking and weights between the methods were assessed using Cohen's weighted kappa and Dirichlet regression. Feedback on ease of understanding and answering the 2 tasks was also collected.ResultsMost respondents (>65%) found both tasks (very) easy to understand and answer. The same attribute, survival, was ranked most important irrespective of the methods applied. The overall ranking of the attributes on an aggregate level differed significantly between DCE and SW-ROC (P < 0.01). Greater differences in attribute weights between attributes were reported in DCE compared with SW-DR (P < 0.01). Agreement between the individual-level attribute ranking across methods was moderate (weighted Kappa 0.53-0.55).ConclusionSignificant differences in attribute importance between DCE and SW-DR were found. Respondents reported both methods being relatively easy to understand and answer. Further studies confirming these findings are warranted. Such studies will help to provide accurate guidance for methods selection when studying relative attribute importance across a wide array of preference-relevant decisions.HighlightsBoth DCEs and SW tasks can be used to determine attribute relative importance rankings and weights; however, little evidence exists empirically comparing these methods in terms of outcomes or respondent usability.Most respondents found the DCE and SW tasks very easy or easy to understand and answer.A direct comparison of DCE and SW found significant differences in attribute importance rankings and weights as well as a greater spread in the DCE-derived attribute relative importance weights.

Project description:BackgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) is a measurement methodology that involves the repeated collection of real-time data on participants' behavior and experience in their natural environment. While EMA allows researchers to gain valuable insights into dynamic behavioral processes, the need for frequent self-reporting can be burdensome and disruptive. Compliance with EMA protocols is important for accurate, unbiased sampling; yet, there is no "gold standard" for EMA study design to promote compliance.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to use a factorial design to identify optimal study design factors, or combinations of factors, for achieving the highest completion rates for smartphone-based EMAs.MethodsParticipants recruited from across the United States were randomized to 1 of 2 levels on each of 5 design factors in a 2×2×2×2×2 design (32 conditions): factor 1-number of questions per EMA survey (15 vs 25); factor 2-number of EMAs per day (2 vs 4); factor 3-EMA prompting schedule (random vs fixed times); factor 4-payment type (US $1 paid per EMA vs payment based on the percentage of EMAs completed); and factor 5-EMA response scale type (ie, slider-type response scale vs Likert-type response scale; this is the only within-person factor; each participant was randomized to complete slider- or Likert-type questions for the first 14 days or second 14 days of the study period). All participants were asked to complete prompted EMAs for 28 days. The effect of each factor on EMA completion was examined, as well as the effects of factor interactions on EMA completion. Finally, relations between demographic and socioenvironmental factors and EMA completion were examined.ResultsParticipants (N=411) were aged 48.4 (SD 12.1) years; 75.7% (311/411) were female, 72.5% (298/411) were White, 18.0% (74/411) were Black or African American, 2.7% (11/411) were Asian, 1.5% (6/411) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 5.4% (22/411) belonged to more than one race, and 9.6% (38/396) were Hispanic/Latino. On average, participants completed 83.8% (28,948/34,552) of scheduled EMAs, and 96.6% (397/411) of participants completed the follow-up survey. Results indicated that there were no significant main effects of the design factors on compliance and no significant interactions. Analyses also indicated that older adults, those without a history of substance use problems, and those without current depression tended to complete more EMAs than their counterparts. No other demographic or socioenvironmental factors were related to EMA completion rates. Finally, the app was well liked (ie, system usability scale score=82.7), and there was a statistically significant positive association between liking the app and EMA compliance.ConclusionsStudy results have broad implications for developing best practices guidelines for future studies that use EMA methodologies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number NCT05194228; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05194228.