Developing a person-centered stated preference survey for dementia with Lewy bodies: value of a personal and public involvement process

Paula Sinead Donnelly, Aoife Sweeney, Emily Wilson, Anthony Peter Passmore, N. Mccorry, Marco Boeri, Joseph P. M. Kane
{"title":"Developing a person-centered stated preference survey for dementia with Lewy bodies: value of a personal and public involvement process","authors":"Paula Sinead Donnelly, Aoife Sweeney, Emily Wilson, Anthony Peter Passmore, N. Mccorry, Marco Boeri, Joseph P. M. Kane","doi":"10.3389/frdem.2024.1421556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The development of high-quality stated preference (SP) surveys requires a rigorous design process involving engagement with representatives from the target population. However, while transparency in the reporting of the development of SP surveys is encouraged, few studies report on this process and the outcomes. Recommended stages of instrument development includes both steps for stakeholder/end-user engagement and pretesting. Pretesting typically involves interviews, often across multiple waves, with improvements made at each wave; pretesting is therefore resource intensive. The aims of this paper are to report on the outcomes of collaboration with a Lewy body dementia research advisory group during the design phase of a SP survey. We also evaluate an alternative approach to instrument development, necessitated by a resource constrained context.The approach involved conducting the stages of end-user engagement and pretesting together during a public involvement event. A hybrid approach involving a focus group with breakout interviews was employed. Feedback from contributors informed the evolution of the survey instrument.Changes to the survey instrument were organized into four categories: attribute modifications; choice task presentation and understanding; information presentation, clarity and content; and best-best scaling presentation. The hybrid approach facilitated group brainstorming while still allowing the researcher to assess the feasibility of choice tasks in an interview setting. However, greater individual exploration and the opportunity to trial iterative improvements across waves was not feasible with this approach.Involvement of the research advisory group resulted in a more person-centered survey design. In a context constrained by time and budget, and with consideration of the capacity and vulnerability of the target population, the approach taken was a feasible and pragmatic mechanism for improving the design of a SP survey.","PeriodicalId":408305,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Dementia","volume":"7 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Dementia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frdem.2024.1421556","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The development of high-quality stated preference (SP) surveys requires a rigorous design process involving engagement with representatives from the target population. However, while transparency in the reporting of the development of SP surveys is encouraged, few studies report on this process and the outcomes. Recommended stages of instrument development includes both steps for stakeholder/end-user engagement and pretesting. Pretesting typically involves interviews, often across multiple waves, with improvements made at each wave; pretesting is therefore resource intensive. The aims of this paper are to report on the outcomes of collaboration with a Lewy body dementia research advisory group during the design phase of a SP survey. We also evaluate an alternative approach to instrument development, necessitated by a resource constrained context.The approach involved conducting the stages of end-user engagement and pretesting together during a public involvement event. A hybrid approach involving a focus group with breakout interviews was employed. Feedback from contributors informed the evolution of the survey instrument.Changes to the survey instrument were organized into four categories: attribute modifications; choice task presentation and understanding; information presentation, clarity and content; and best-best scaling presentation. The hybrid approach facilitated group brainstorming while still allowing the researcher to assess the feasibility of choice tasks in an interview setting. However, greater individual exploration and the opportunity to trial iterative improvements across waves was not feasible with this approach.Involvement of the research advisory group resulted in a more person-centered survey design. In a context constrained by time and budget, and with consideration of the capacity and vulnerability of the target population, the approach taken was a feasible and pragmatic mechanism for improving the design of a SP survey.
针对路易体痴呆症制定以人为本的既定偏好调查:个人和公众参与过程的价值
开发高质量的陈述偏好(SP)调查需要一个严格的设计过程,其中涉及目标人群代表的参与。然而,虽然我们鼓励在报告陈述偏好调查的开发过程时保持透明,但很少有研究报告这一过程及其结果。建议的工具开发阶段包括利益相关者/最终用户参与和预试两个步骤。预试通常涉及访谈,往往跨越多个波次,并在每个波次进行改进;因此,预试是资源密集型的。本文旨在报告在一项 SP 调查的设计阶段与路易体痴呆症研究顾问小组合作的成果。在资源有限的情况下,我们还对另一种工具开发方法进行了评估。该方法包括在公众参与活动中同时进行最终用户参与和预试。我们采用了一种混合方法,包括焦点小组和分组访谈。对调查工具的修改分为四类:属性修改;选择任务展示和理解;信息展示、清晰度和内容;最佳比例展示。混合方法有利于小组集思广益,同时还允许研究人员在访谈环境中评估选择任务的可行性。然而,这种方法无法进行更多的个人探索,也没有机会在各次调查中进行反复改进。在时间和预算有限的情况下,考虑到目标人群的能力和脆弱性,所采取的方法是改进 SP 调查设计的一种可行和务实的机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信