Physical Activity Preferences of People Living with Brain Injury: Formative Qualitative Research to Develop a Discrete Choice Experiment.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Abby Haynes, Kirsten Howard, Liam Johnson, Gavin Williams, Kelly Clanchy, Sean Tweedy, Adam Scheinberg, Sakina Chagpar, Belinda Wang, Gabrielle Vassallo, Rhys Ashpole, Catherine Sherrington, Leanne Hassett
{"title":"Physical Activity Preferences of People Living with Brain Injury: Formative Qualitative Research to Develop a Discrete Choice Experiment.","authors":"Abby Haynes,&nbsp;Kirsten Howard,&nbsp;Liam Johnson,&nbsp;Gavin Williams,&nbsp;Kelly Clanchy,&nbsp;Sean Tweedy,&nbsp;Adam Scheinberg,&nbsp;Sakina Chagpar,&nbsp;Belinda Wang,&nbsp;Gabrielle Vassallo,&nbsp;Rhys Ashpole,&nbsp;Catherine Sherrington,&nbsp;Leanne Hassett","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00628-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>The World Health Organization physical activity guidelines for people living with disability do not consider the needs of people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. This paper describes the qualitative co-development of a discrete choice experiment survey to inform the adaption of these guidelines by identifying the physical activity preferences of people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury in Australia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The research team comprised researchers, people with lived experience of traumatic brain injury and health professionals with expertise in traumatic brain injury. We followed a four-stage process: (1) identification of key constructs and initial expression of attributes, (2) critique and refinement of attributes, (3) prioritisation of attributes and refinement of levels and (4) testing and refining language, format and comprehensibility. Data collection included deliberative dialogue, focus groups and think-aloud interviews with 22 purposively sampled people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. Strategies were used to support inclusive participation. Analysis employed qualitative description and framework methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This formative process resulted in discarding, merging, renaming and reconceptualising attributes and levels. Attributes were reduced from an initial list of 17 to six: (1) Type of activity, (2) Out-of-pocket cost, (3) Travel time, (4) Who with, (5) Facilitated by and (6) Accessibility of setting. Confusing terminology and cumbersome features of the survey instrument were also revised. Challenges included purposive recruitment, reducing diverse stakeholder views to a few attributes, finding the right language and navigating the complexity of discrete choice experiment scenarios.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This formative co-development process significantly improved the relevance and comprehensibility of the discrete choice experiment survey tool. This process may be applicable in other discrete choice experiment studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b8/5e/40271_2023_Article_628.PMC10196322.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00628-9","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: The World Health Organization physical activity guidelines for people living with disability do not consider the needs of people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. This paper describes the qualitative co-development of a discrete choice experiment survey to inform the adaption of these guidelines by identifying the physical activity preferences of people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury in Australia.

Methods: The research team comprised researchers, people with lived experience of traumatic brain injury and health professionals with expertise in traumatic brain injury. We followed a four-stage process: (1) identification of key constructs and initial expression of attributes, (2) critique and refinement of attributes, (3) prioritisation of attributes and refinement of levels and (4) testing and refining language, format and comprehensibility. Data collection included deliberative dialogue, focus groups and think-aloud interviews with 22 purposively sampled people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. Strategies were used to support inclusive participation. Analysis employed qualitative description and framework methods.

Results: This formative process resulted in discarding, merging, renaming and reconceptualising attributes and levels. Attributes were reduced from an initial list of 17 to six: (1) Type of activity, (2) Out-of-pocket cost, (3) Travel time, (4) Who with, (5) Facilitated by and (6) Accessibility of setting. Confusing terminology and cumbersome features of the survey instrument were also revised. Challenges included purposive recruitment, reducing diverse stakeholder views to a few attributes, finding the right language and navigating the complexity of discrete choice experiment scenarios.

Conclusions: This formative co-development process significantly improved the relevance and comprehensibility of the discrete choice experiment survey tool. This process may be applicable in other discrete choice experiment studies.

脑损伤患者的运动偏好:离散选择实验的形成性定性研究。
背景和目的:世界卫生组织残疾人体育活动指南没有考虑到中度至重度创伤性脑损伤患者的需求。本文描述了一项离散选择实验调查的定性共同发展,通过确定澳大利亚中重度创伤性脑损伤患者的身体活动偏好,为这些指南的适应提供信息。方法:研究小组由研究人员、有创伤性脑损伤生活经历的人员和具有创伤性脑损伤专业知识的卫生专业人员组成。我们遵循了一个四阶段的过程:(1)识别关键结构和属性的初始表达,(2)批评和改进属性,(3)确定属性的优先级和改进级别,(4)测试和改进语言、格式和可理解性。数据收集包括审慎对话、焦点小组和对22名有目的地抽样的中重度创伤性脑损伤患者的思考访谈。采取了支持包容性参与的战略。分析采用定性描述和框架方法。结果:这个形成过程导致丢弃、合并、重命名和重新定义属性和级别。属性从最初的17个减少到6个:(1)活动类型,(2)自付费用,(3)旅行时间,(4)与谁一起,(5)便利和(6)环境的可及性。还修订了测量仪器的混淆术语和繁琐特征。挑战包括有目的的招聘,将不同的利益相关者的观点减少到几个属性,找到正确的语言,并在离散选择实验场景的复杂性中导航。结论:这种形成性的共同发展过程显著提高了离散选择实验调查工具的相关性和可理解性。这一过程可能适用于其他离散选择实验研究。
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