参与者对在线个人效用函数(OPUF)方法中所问问题的理解程度如何?对EQ- hwb - s(情商健康与幸福短版)评估进行认知汇报。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Tessa Peasgood, Nancy Devlin, Kristina Ludwig, Ole Marten, Emily McDool, Paul Schneider, Koonal Shah, Clara Mukuria
{"title":"参与者对在线个人效用函数(OPUF)方法中所问问题的理解程度如何?对EQ- hwb - s(情商健康与幸福短版)评估进行认知汇报。","authors":"Tessa Peasgood, Nancy Devlin, Kristina Ludwig, Ole Marten, Emily McDool, Paul Schneider, Koonal Shah, Clara Mukuria","doi":"10.1007/s11136-025-03989-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Online elicitation of Personal Utility Functions (OPUF) is an innovative approach to valuing health states. OPUF uses a combination of ranking, swing-weighting, levels-rating and anchoring dead tasks. Little is known about how participants interpret and engage with OPUF tasks. This study aimed to address this gap.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Cognitive debrief interviews, which included 'think-aloud' and probing questions, were undertaken in the UK to understand how members of the public engage with OPUF when used to value the EQ-HWB-S (EQ Health and Wellbeing Short version). Coding drew upon a Framework approach, with final codes including an assessment of how participants engaged with each of the five OPUF tasks based on whether (1) they completed as expected, (2) minor concerns were identified or (3) major concerns were identified. The presence of major concerns was judged to undermine the validity of responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 27 interviews were identified to have at least minor concern and 18 (67%) were identified as having major concerns. Major concerns were identified in four of the tasks: ranking (in 19% of interviews), swing-weighting (30%), levels-rating (56%), anchoring dead task (48%). Older participants were more likely to have major errors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Think-aloud and probing interviews with 27 participants completing the OPUF identified multiple concerns, to the extent that their data is unlikely to be a valid reflection of their preferences. The extent of concerns identified here suggests the need for interviewer led data collection within OPUF to ensure data quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How well do participants understand the questions asked in the Online Personal Utility Functions (OPUF) approach? A cognitive debrief of the EQ-HWB-S (EQ Health and Wellbeing Short version) valuation.\",\"authors\":\"Tessa Peasgood, Nancy Devlin, Kristina Ludwig, Ole Marten, Emily McDool, Paul Schneider, Koonal Shah, Clara Mukuria\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11136-025-03989-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Online elicitation of Personal Utility Functions (OPUF) is an innovative approach to valuing health states. OPUF uses a combination of ranking, swing-weighting, levels-rating and anchoring dead tasks. Little is known about how participants interpret and engage with OPUF tasks. This study aimed to address this gap.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Cognitive debrief interviews, which included 'think-aloud' and probing questions, were undertaken in the UK to understand how members of the public engage with OPUF when used to value the EQ-HWB-S (EQ Health and Wellbeing Short version). Coding drew upon a Framework approach, with final codes including an assessment of how participants engaged with each of the five OPUF tasks based on whether (1) they completed as expected, (2) minor concerns were identified or (3) major concerns were identified. The presence of major concerns was judged to undermine the validity of responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 27 interviews were identified to have at least minor concern and 18 (67%) were identified as having major concerns. Major concerns were identified in four of the tasks: ranking (in 19% of interviews), swing-weighting (30%), levels-rating (56%), anchoring dead task (48%). Older participants were more likely to have major errors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Think-aloud and probing interviews with 27 participants completing the OPUF identified multiple concerns, to the extent that their data is unlikely to be a valid reflection of their preferences. The extent of concerns identified here suggests the need for interviewer led data collection within OPUF to ensure data quality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-03989-w\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-025-03989-w","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

摘要

目的:在线获取个人效用函数(OPUF)是一种评估健康状态的创新方法。OPUF使用了排序、摇摆加权、等级评级和锚定死任务的组合。人们对参与者如何解释和参与OPUF任务知之甚少。本研究旨在解决这一差距。方法:在英国进行了认知述职访谈,其中包括“大声思考”和探索性问题,以了解公众在评估EQ- hwb - s(情商健康与幸福简短版)时如何参与OPUF。编码采用了框架方法,最终代码包括评估参与者如何根据(1)他们是否按预期完成,(2)确定了次要问题或(3)确定了主要问题来完成五个OPUF任务。主要关切的存在被认为破坏了答复的有效性。结果:所有27个访谈被确定为至少有轻微的担忧,18个(67%)被确定为有主要的担忧。在四个任务中确定了主要关注点:排名(19%的访谈),摇摆权重(30%),水平评级(56%),锚定死亡任务(48%)。年龄较大的参与者更容易犯重大错误。结论:对完成OPUF的27名参与者进行了大声思考和探索性访谈,确定了多个关注点,他们的数据不太可能是他们偏好的有效反映。这里确定的关注程度表明,OPUF需要采访者领导的数据收集,以确保数据质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How well do participants understand the questions asked in the Online Personal Utility Functions (OPUF) approach? A cognitive debrief of the EQ-HWB-S (EQ Health and Wellbeing Short version) valuation.

Purpose: Online elicitation of Personal Utility Functions (OPUF) is an innovative approach to valuing health states. OPUF uses a combination of ranking, swing-weighting, levels-rating and anchoring dead tasks. Little is known about how participants interpret and engage with OPUF tasks. This study aimed to address this gap.

Method: Cognitive debrief interviews, which included 'think-aloud' and probing questions, were undertaken in the UK to understand how members of the public engage with OPUF when used to value the EQ-HWB-S (EQ Health and Wellbeing Short version). Coding drew upon a Framework approach, with final codes including an assessment of how participants engaged with each of the five OPUF tasks based on whether (1) they completed as expected, (2) minor concerns were identified or (3) major concerns were identified. The presence of major concerns was judged to undermine the validity of responses.

Results: All 27 interviews were identified to have at least minor concern and 18 (67%) were identified as having major concerns. Major concerns were identified in four of the tasks: ranking (in 19% of interviews), swing-weighting (30%), levels-rating (56%), anchoring dead task (48%). Older participants were more likely to have major errors.

Conclusion: Think-aloud and probing interviews with 27 participants completing the OPUF identified multiple concerns, to the extent that their data is unlikely to be a valid reflection of their preferences. The extent of concerns identified here suggests the need for interviewer led data collection within OPUF to ensure data quality.

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
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
×
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