Lucy Xu, Molly N Huston, Victoria S Lee, John D Cramer, Deborah Goss, Matthew R Naunheim
{"title":"耳鼻喉科陈述偏好研究:范围综述。","authors":"Lucy Xu, Molly N Huston, Victoria S Lee, John D Cramer, Deborah Goss, Matthew R Naunheim","doi":"10.1002/oto2.70140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Stated preference research methods, including discrete choice experiments (DCEs), conjoint analysis (CA), best-worst scaling (BWS), and willingness-to-pay/contingent valuation (WTP/CV) studies, are excellent tools for understanding patient preferences in healthcare. Their application in otolaryngology has yet to be described. This work encompasses a scoping review assessing the field of stated preference research in otolaryngology, to identify gaps in the current literature and identify areas of future applications of such methodologies.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Embase, Medline, and Web of Science.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>A search of three databases for all relevant publications through 2023 was performed using relevant search terms. Eligibility criteria for included studies included the use of one of four methodologies (DCE, CA, BWS, and WTA/CV). After screening and full-text review by two authors, data were extracted, including relevant methodologic parameters including type of study, survey development characteristics, sample size, and outcome. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3064 search results, 57 were included for full data extraction from inception to 2023, across 14 countries, with an increasing number of studies in recent years. WTP/CV was the most common method (58%), followed by DCE (30%), CA (23%), and BWS studies (5%). Otology was the most frequently studied subspeciality (36.8%). Treatment options were more commonly studied than diagnostics or health state preferences. Many studies did not specify survey development methods (38.6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Stated preference research in otolaryngology is relatively sparse, and there is significant methodological inconsistency in the development and implementation of these methods. This review provides research priorities for stated preference research in otolaryngology in an era of patient-centered care.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level 4.</p>","PeriodicalId":19697,"journal":{"name":"OTO Open","volume":"9 2","pages":"e70140"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12160337/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stated Preference Research in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Lucy Xu, Molly N Huston, Victoria S Lee, John D Cramer, Deborah Goss, Matthew R Naunheim\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/oto2.70140\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Stated preference research methods, including discrete choice experiments (DCEs), conjoint analysis (CA), best-worst scaling (BWS), and willingness-to-pay/contingent valuation (WTP/CV) studies, are excellent tools for understanding patient preferences in healthcare. Their application in otolaryngology has yet to be described. This work encompasses a scoping review assessing the field of stated preference research in otolaryngology, to identify gaps in the current literature and identify areas of future applications of such methodologies.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Embase, Medline, and Web of Science.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>A search of three databases for all relevant publications through 2023 was performed using relevant search terms. Eligibility criteria for included studies included the use of one of four methodologies (DCE, CA, BWS, and WTA/CV). After screening and full-text review by two authors, data were extracted, including relevant methodologic parameters including type of study, survey development characteristics, sample size, and outcome. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 3064 search results, 57 were included for full data extraction from inception to 2023, across 14 countries, with an increasing number of studies in recent years. WTP/CV was the most common method (58%), followed by DCE (30%), CA (23%), and BWS studies (5%). Otology was the most frequently studied subspeciality (36.8%). Treatment options were more commonly studied than diagnostics or health state preferences. Many studies did not specify survey development methods (38.6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Stated preference research in otolaryngology is relatively sparse, and there is significant methodological inconsistency in the development and implementation of these methods. This review provides research priorities for stated preference research in otolaryngology in an era of patient-centered care.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level 4.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"OTO Open\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"e70140\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12160337/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"OTO Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/oto2.70140\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OTO Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/oto2.70140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:明确的偏好研究方法,包括离散选择实验(DCEs)、联合分析(CA)、最佳最差尺度(BWS)和支付意愿/条件评估(WTP/CV)研究,是了解患者在医疗保健方面偏好的优秀工具。它们在耳鼻喉科的应用还有待描述。这项工作包括评估耳鼻喉科声明偏好研究领域的范围审查,以确定当前文献中的空白,并确定此类方法的未来应用领域。数据来源:Embase、Medline和Web of Science。综述方法:使用相关检索词在三个数据库中检索到2023年的所有相关出版物。纳入研究的资格标准包括使用四种方法中的一种(DCE、CA、BWS和WTA/CV)。经过筛选和两位作者的全文审阅,提取数据,包括相关的方法学参数,包括研究类型、调查发展特征、样本量和结果。数据分析采用描述性统计。结果:在3064个搜索结果中,有57个被纳入了从开始到2023年的完整数据提取,涉及14个国家,近年来研究数量不断增加。WTP/CV是最常见的方法(58%),其次是DCE(30%)、CA(23%)和BWS研究(5%)。耳科是最常见的亚专科(36.8%)。治疗方案比诊断或健康状况偏好更常被研究。许多研究未明确调查开展方法(38.6%)。结论:耳鼻喉科的陈述偏好研究相对较少,这些方法的开发和实施存在明显的方法学不一致性。这篇综述提供了在以患者为中心的护理时代耳鼻喉科陈述偏好研究的研究重点。证据等级:四级。
Stated Preference Research in Otolaryngology: A Scoping Review.
Objective: Stated preference research methods, including discrete choice experiments (DCEs), conjoint analysis (CA), best-worst scaling (BWS), and willingness-to-pay/contingent valuation (WTP/CV) studies, are excellent tools for understanding patient preferences in healthcare. Their application in otolaryngology has yet to be described. This work encompasses a scoping review assessing the field of stated preference research in otolaryngology, to identify gaps in the current literature and identify areas of future applications of such methodologies.
Data sources: Embase, Medline, and Web of Science.
Review methods: A search of three databases for all relevant publications through 2023 was performed using relevant search terms. Eligibility criteria for included studies included the use of one of four methodologies (DCE, CA, BWS, and WTA/CV). After screening and full-text review by two authors, data were extracted, including relevant methodologic parameters including type of study, survey development characteristics, sample size, and outcome. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results: Of 3064 search results, 57 were included for full data extraction from inception to 2023, across 14 countries, with an increasing number of studies in recent years. WTP/CV was the most common method (58%), followed by DCE (30%), CA (23%), and BWS studies (5%). Otology was the most frequently studied subspeciality (36.8%). Treatment options were more commonly studied than diagnostics or health state preferences. Many studies did not specify survey development methods (38.6%).
Conclusion: Stated preference research in otolaryngology is relatively sparse, and there is significant methodological inconsistency in the development and implementation of these methods. This review provides research priorities for stated preference research in otolaryngology in an era of patient-centered care.