A Systematic Review Comparing the Acceptability, Validity and Concordance of Discrete Choice Experiments and Best–Worst Scaling for Eliciting Preferences in Healthcare

一致性 检查表 奇纳 背景(考古学) 外部有效性 梅德林 科克伦图书馆 医疗保健 医学 荟萃分析 系统回顾 心理学 社会心理学 护理部 心理干预 认知心理学 古生物学 政治学 内科学 法学 经济 生物 经济增长
作者
Jennifer A. Whitty,Ana Sofia Oliveira Gonçalves
出处
期刊:The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research [Springer Nature]
卷期号:11 (3): 301-317 被引量:30
标识
DOI:10.1007/s40271-017-0288-y
摘要

The aim of this study was to compare the acceptability, validity and concordance of discrete choice experiment (DCE) and best-worst scaling (BWS) stated preference approaches in health.A systematic search of EMBASE, Medline, AMED, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and EconLit databases was undertaken in October to December 2016 without date restriction. Studies were included if they were published in English, presented empirical data related to the administration or findings of traditional format DCE and object-, profile- or multiprofile-case BWS, and were related to health. Study quality was assessed using the PREFS checklist.Fourteen articles describing 12 studies were included, comparing DCE with profile-case BWS (9 studies), DCE and multiprofile-case BWS (1 study), and profile- and multiprofile-case BWS (2 studies). Although limited and inconsistent, the balance of evidence suggests that preferences derived from DCE and profile-case BWS may not be concordant, regardless of the decision context. Preferences estimated from DCE and multiprofile-case BWS may be concordant (single study). Profile- and multiprofile-case BWS appear more statistically efficient than DCE, but no evidence is available to suggest they have a greater response efficiency. Little evidence suggests superior validity for one format over another. Participant acceptability may favour DCE, which had a lower self-reported task difficulty and was preferred over profile-case BWS in a priority setting but not necessarily in other decision contexts.DCE and profile-case BWS may be of equal validity but give different preference estimates regardless of the health context; thus, they may be measuring different constructs. Therefore, choice between methods is likely to be based on normative considerations related to coherence with theoretical frameworks and on pragmatic considerations related to ease of data collection.
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
霖宸羽完成签到,获得积分10
刚刚
2秒前
无奈的代珊完成签到 ,获得积分10
2秒前
3秒前
3秒前
搜集达人应助糊涂的小伙采纳,获得10
3秒前
mmd完成签到 ,获得积分10
4秒前
4秒前
Lily完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
温言发布了新的文献求助10
6秒前
6秒前
Roy完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
永远少年完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
niu1发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
9秒前
Danny完成签到,获得积分10
9秒前
Lsx完成签到 ,获得积分10
9秒前
又胖了发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
10秒前
小小飞发布了新的文献求助20
11秒前
11秒前
11秒前
12秒前
wanci应助NorthWang采纳,获得10
12秒前
zhen完成签到,获得积分10
14秒前
ns发布了新的文献求助30
15秒前
16秒前
逐风完成签到,获得积分10
16秒前
无奈的酒窝完成签到,获得积分10
17秒前
17秒前
18秒前
blingbling发布了新的文献求助10
18秒前
今后应助SherlockLiu采纳,获得30
20秒前
daniel发布了新的文献求助10
20秒前
Jason应助温言采纳,获得20
21秒前
逐风发布了新的文献求助30
22秒前
hhzz发布了新的文献求助10
22秒前
日月轮回完成签到,获得积分10
23秒前
24秒前
Yimim发布了新的文献求助10
24秒前
高分求助中
Continuum Thermodynamics and Material Modelling 3000
Production Logging: Theoretical and Interpretive Elements 2700
Social media impact on athlete mental health: #RealityCheck 1020
Ensartinib (Ensacove) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer 1000
Unseen Mendieta: The Unpublished Works of Ana Mendieta 1000
Bacterial collagenases and their clinical applications 800
El viaje de una vida: Memorias de María Lecea 800
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 生物 医学 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 纳米技术 计算机科学 内科学 化学工程 复合材料 基因 遗传学 物理化学 催化作用 量子力学 光电子学 冶金
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3527928
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3108040
关于积分的说明 9287614
捐赠科研通 2805836
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1540070
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 716904
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 709808