提高对健康偏好研究的信心和接受度的研究重点:现在应优先考虑哪些问题?

Rachael L. DiSantostefano, Ian P. Smith, Marie Falahee, Aura Cecilia Jiménez-Moreno, Serena Oliveri, Jorien Veldwijk, G. Ardine de Wit, Ellen M. Janssen, Conny Berlin, Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn
{"title":"提高对健康偏好研究的信心和接受度的研究重点:现在应优先考虑哪些问题?","authors":"Rachael L. DiSantostefano, Ian P. Smith, Marie Falahee, Aura Cecilia Jiménez-Moreno, Serena Oliveri, Jorien Veldwijk, G. Ardine de Wit, Ellen M. Janssen, Conny Berlin, Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00650-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background and Objective</h3><p>There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?\",\"authors\":\"Rachael L. DiSantostefano, Ian P. Smith, Marie Falahee, Aura Cecilia Jiménez-Moreno, Serena Oliveri, Jorien Veldwijk, G. Ardine de Wit, Ellen M. Janssen, Conny Berlin, Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-023-00650-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Background and Objective</h3><p>There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00650-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00650-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:研究和使用陈述偏好方法为药品开发决策提供信息的情况越来越多。本研究的目的是根据偏好研究团体成员的观点,确定与健康偏好相关的优先主题和问题。方法通过专业网络和以偏好为目标的电子邮件列表服务器招募来自工业界、学术界、咨询公司、健康技术评估/监管机构和患者组织的偏好研究利益相关者,并调查他们对未来研究的 19 个主题和问题的观点,以提高决策者对偏好方法及其结果的接受度。在线调查包括初始重要性优先级排序任务、最佳-最差缩放案例 1 工具和开放式问题。评分计数用于分析。最佳-最差评分采用平衡不完全区组设计。结果 101 名参与者回复了调查邀请,其中 66 人完成了最佳-最差评分。最重要的研究课题涉及不同研究间偏好的综合、不同人群或相关疾病间的可转移性,以及包括方法比较和非离散选择实验方法在内的方法课题。主要隶属于学术界的受访者与其他利益相关者在优先排序上存在差异。结论随着健康偏好研究领域的发展,有必要重新审视和交流以前关于偏好选择和研究设计的工作,以确保新的利益相关者了解这些工作,并在必要时更新这些工作。这些研究结果可能会鼓励持有不同研究重点的利益相关者进行讨论和协调。研究如何将以前的偏好研究应用于新的环境,也将有助于提高决策者对健康偏好信息的接受程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?

Background and Objective

There has been an increase in the study and use of stated-preference methods to inform medicine development decisions. The objective of this study was to identify prioritized topics and questions relating to health preferences based on the perspective of members of the preference research community.

Methods

Preference research stakeholders from industry, academia, consultancy, health technology assessment/regulatory, and patient organizations were recruited using professional networks and preference-targeted e-mail listservs and surveyed about their perspectives on 19 topics and questions for future studies that would increase acceptance of preference methods and their results by decision makers. The online survey consisted of an initial importance prioritization task, a best-worst scaling case 1 instrument, and open-ended questions. Rating counts were used for analysis. The best-worst scaling used a balanced incomplete block design.

Results

One hundred and one participants responded to the survey invitation with 66 completing the best-worst scaling. The most important research topics related to the synthesis of preferences across studies, transferability across populations or related diseases, and method topics including comparison of methods and non-discrete choice experiment methods. Prioritization differences were found between respondents whose primary affiliation was academia versus other stakeholders. Academic researchers prioritized methodological/less studied topics; other stakeholders prioritized applied research topics relating to consistency of practice.

Conclusions

As the field of health preference research grows, there is a need to revisit and communicate previous work on preference selection and study design to ensure that new stakeholders are aware of this work and to update these works where necessary. These findings might encourage discussion and alignment among different stakeholders who might hold different research priorities. Research on the application of previous preference research to new contexts will also help increase the acceptance of health preference information by decision makers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信