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 内科学 古生物学 经济 生物 法学 经济增长 政治学
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
更新
大幅提高文件上传限制,最高150M (2024-4-1)

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
刚刚
西柚完成签到,获得积分10
刚刚
翻似烂柯人完成签到,获得积分10
刚刚
1秒前
李二二发布了新的文献求助30
1秒前
tiantian发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
1秒前
hehe发布了新的文献求助10
1秒前
kanoz发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
蒙豆儿发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
3秒前
6秒前
清秀乘风完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
zyw发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
8秒前
积极发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
8秒前
NPC发布了新的文献求助30
8秒前
fifteen发布了新的文献求助10
8秒前
10秒前
317完成签到,获得积分20
10秒前
10秒前
eee7完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
26发布了新的文献求助10
11秒前
科目三应助搞怪的巨人采纳,获得10
11秒前
Hana完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
11秒前
liuniuniu完成签到,获得积分10
12秒前
深情安青应助YU采纳,获得10
12秒前
汉堡包应助哈哈哈哈哈采纳,获得10
12秒前
12秒前
结实灭男发布了新的文献求助10
13秒前
Nanbaobao发布了新的文献求助10
13秒前
蒙豆儿完成签到,获得积分10
14秒前
Hana发布了新的文献求助10
14秒前
酷炫的背包完成签到,获得积分10
15秒前
15秒前
无花果应助zhz采纳,获得10
15秒前
mingkle应助迅速谷云采纳,获得30
15秒前
16秒前
高分求助中
Evolution 10000
Sustainability in Tides Chemistry 2800
юрские динозавры восточного забайкалья 800
English Wealden Fossils 700
An Introduction to Geographical and Urban Economics: A Spiky World Book by Charles van Marrewijk, Harry Garretsen, and Steven Brakman 600
Diagnostic immunohistochemistry : theranostic and genomic applications 6th Edition 500
Mantiden: Faszinierende Lauerjäger Faszinierende Lauerjäger 400
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 医学 生物 材料科学 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 基因 遗传学 催化作用 物理化学 免疫学 量子力学 细胞生物学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3153624
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 2804769
关于积分的说明 7861576
捐赠科研通 2462781
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1310981
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 629428
版权声明 601809