Incorporating Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) Questions into Focus Groups to Improve Understanding of Patient Preferences and Refine BWS Attributes.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Deborah A Marshall, Karen V MacDonald, Nitya Suryaprakash, Raza M Mirza, Maida J Sewitch, Geoffrey C Nguyen
{"title":"Incorporating Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) Questions into Focus Groups to Improve Understanding of Patient Preferences and Refine BWS Attributes.","authors":"Deborah A Marshall, Karen V MacDonald, Nitya Suryaprakash, Raza M Mirza, Maida J Sewitch, Geoffrey C Nguyen","doi":"10.1007/s40271-025-00736-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Best-worst scaling (BWS) is a stated preference elicitation method used for prioritizing attributes of healthcare interventions. Best-worst scaling attribute development is commonly based on literature review, qualitative work, and methodological/clinical expert input. There is limited research incorporating BWS in focus groups as part of the attribute development process. We sought to explore how incorporating BWS questions using the list of potential attributes in focus groups could be used to improve understanding of patient preferences and refine the list of potential BWS attributes as part of the attribute development process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We administered BWS questions on healthcare priorities for inflammatory bowel disease in five focus groups with Canadian patients with inflammatory bowel disease to (1) understand the \"what,\" \"how,\" and \"why\" of participant choices and (2) note how participants understand the attributes and the language they use to refine the list of potential BWS attributes. A list of 20 potential attributes was used to generate the BWS questions. We coded most/least important choices (\"what\") and used a thematic analysis to derive subthemes indicating \"how\" and \"why\" participants made their choices. We coded how participants understood the attributes/BWS questions and language used when discussing the attributes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across the 36 participants, the most frequently chosen most/least important attributes were summarized. Three subthemes explaining the \"how\" and \"why\" of participant choices were identified: perceived gain; influence of individual experiences; current health state and personal circumstances. Participants identified challenges understanding specific attributes and BWS questions, and provided suggestions for modifications to attribute language/descriptions. Administering BWS questions in focus groups provided: (1) insight into the assumptions participants made when completing the BWS questions; (2) clarity in language and attribute descriptions, and challenges participants had when completing the BWS questions that can be used to refine the list of potential attributes as part of the attribute development process; and (3) understanding of which attributes were most/least important and why to identify potential attributes to remove during the next steps of the attribute development process.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Best-worst scaling questions conducted within focus groups can stimulate discussions around relative importance and prioritization of attributes. Through open dialogue, this method can unveil unforeseen responses or identify areas that are unclear and enable a transparent approach to refine the list of potential attributes as part of the attribute development process.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00736-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: Best-worst scaling (BWS) is a stated preference elicitation method used for prioritizing attributes of healthcare interventions. Best-worst scaling attribute development is commonly based on literature review, qualitative work, and methodological/clinical expert input. There is limited research incorporating BWS in focus groups as part of the attribute development process. We sought to explore how incorporating BWS questions using the list of potential attributes in focus groups could be used to improve understanding of patient preferences and refine the list of potential BWS attributes as part of the attribute development process.

Methods: We administered BWS questions on healthcare priorities for inflammatory bowel disease in five focus groups with Canadian patients with inflammatory bowel disease to (1) understand the "what," "how," and "why" of participant choices and (2) note how participants understand the attributes and the language they use to refine the list of potential BWS attributes. A list of 20 potential attributes was used to generate the BWS questions. We coded most/least important choices ("what") and used a thematic analysis to derive subthemes indicating "how" and "why" participants made their choices. We coded how participants understood the attributes/BWS questions and language used when discussing the attributes.

Results: Across the 36 participants, the most frequently chosen most/least important attributes were summarized. Three subthemes explaining the "how" and "why" of participant choices were identified: perceived gain; influence of individual experiences; current health state and personal circumstances. Participants identified challenges understanding specific attributes and BWS questions, and provided suggestions for modifications to attribute language/descriptions. Administering BWS questions in focus groups provided: (1) insight into the assumptions participants made when completing the BWS questions; (2) clarity in language and attribute descriptions, and challenges participants had when completing the BWS questions that can be used to refine the list of potential attributes as part of the attribute development process; and (3) understanding of which attributes were most/least important and why to identify potential attributes to remove during the next steps of the attribute development process.

Conclusions: Best-worst scaling questions conducted within focus groups can stimulate discussions around relative importance and prioritization of attributes. Through open dialogue, this method can unveil unforeseen responses or identify areas that are unclear and enable a transparent approach to refine the list of potential attributes as part of the attribute development process.

将最佳最差评分(BWS)问题纳入焦点小组,以提高对患者偏好的理解并完善BWS属性。
背景和目的:最佳-最差尺度(BWS)是一种用于确定医疗保健干预措施属性优先级的陈述偏好启发方法。最佳-最差尺度属性开发通常基于文献综述、定性工作和方法学/临床专家的输入。将BWS作为属性开发过程的一部分纳入焦点小组的研究有限。我们试图探索如何在焦点小组中使用潜在属性列表纳入BWS问题,以提高对患者偏好的理解,并将潜在BWS属性列表作为属性开发过程的一部分进行细化。方法:我们在五个加拿大炎症性肠病患者的焦点小组中对炎症性肠病的医疗保健优先事项进行了BWS问题,以(1)了解参与者选择的“什么”,“如何”和“为什么”;(2)注意参与者如何理解属性和他们用来完善潜在BWS属性列表的语言。一个包含20个潜在属性的列表用于生成BWS问题。我们对最重要/最不重要的选择(“什么”)进行编码,并使用主题分析来获得指示参与者“如何”和“为什么”做出选择的子主题。我们对参与者如何理解属性/BWS问题以及讨论属性时使用的语言进行了编码。结果:在36个参与者中,总结了最常选择的最重要/最不重要的属性。确定了三个解释参与者选择“如何”和“为什么”的副主题:感知收益;个人经历的影响;目前健康状况及个人情况。参与者确定了理解特定属性和BWS问题的挑战,并提供了修改属性语言/描述的建议。在焦点小组中管理BWS问题提供:(1)洞察参与者在完成BWS问题时所做的假设;(2)语言和属性描述的清晰度,以及参与者在完成BWS问题时面临的挑战,这些问题可用于细化潜在属性列表,作为属性开发过程的一部分;(3)了解哪些属性最重要/最不重要,以及为什么要在属性开发过程的下一步中识别要删除的潜在属性。结论:在焦点小组中进行的最佳-最差缩放问题可以激发有关属性的相对重要性和优先级的讨论。通过公开对话,此方法可以揭示未预见的响应或识别不清楚的区域,并启用透明的方法来细化潜在属性列表,作为属性开发过程的一部分。
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
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence. The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making. Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信