Cargando…

Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care

INTRODUCTION: Best–worst scaling (BWS) is becoming increasingly popular to elicit preferences in health care. However, little is known about current practice and trends in the use of BWS in health care. This study aimed to identify, review and critically appraise BWS in health care, and to identify...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheung, Kei Long, Wijnen, Ben F. M., Hollin, Ilene L., Janssen, Ellen M., Bridges, John F., Evers, Silvia M. A. A., Hiligsmann, Mickael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5110583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27402349
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0429-5
_version_ 1782467710861443072
author Cheung, Kei Long
Wijnen, Ben F. M.
Hollin, Ilene L.
Janssen, Ellen M.
Bridges, John F.
Evers, Silvia M. A. A.
Hiligsmann, Mickael
author_facet Cheung, Kei Long
Wijnen, Ben F. M.
Hollin, Ilene L.
Janssen, Ellen M.
Bridges, John F.
Evers, Silvia M. A. A.
Hiligsmann, Mickael
author_sort Cheung, Kei Long
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Best–worst scaling (BWS) is becoming increasingly popular to elicit preferences in health care. However, little is known about current practice and trends in the use of BWS in health care. This study aimed to identify, review and critically appraise BWS in health care, and to identify trends over time in key aspects of BWS. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, using Medline (via Pubmed) and EMBASE to identify all English-language BWS studies published up until April 2016. Using a predefined extraction form, two reviewers independently selected articles and critically appraised the study quality, using the Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance (PREFS) checklist. Trends over time periods (≤2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015) were assessed further. RESULTS: A total of 62 BWS studies were identified, of which 26 were BWS object case studies, 29 were BWS profile case studies and seven were BWS multi-profile case studies. About two thirds of the studies were performed in the last 2 years. Decreasing sample sizes and decreasing numbers of factors in BWS object case studies, as well as use of less complicated analytical methods, were observed in recent studies. The quality of the BWS studies was generally acceptable according to the PREFS checklist, except that most studies did not indicate whether the responders were similar to the non-responders. CONCLUSION: Use of BWS object case and BWS profile case has drastically increased in health care, especially in the last 2 years. In contrast with previous discrete-choice experiment reviews, there is increasing use of less sophisticated analytical methods. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0429-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5110583
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51105832016-11-29 Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care Cheung, Kei Long Wijnen, Ben F. M. Hollin, Ilene L. Janssen, Ellen M. Bridges, John F. Evers, Silvia M. A. A. Hiligsmann, Mickael Pharmacoeconomics Systematic Review INTRODUCTION: Best–worst scaling (BWS) is becoming increasingly popular to elicit preferences in health care. However, little is known about current practice and trends in the use of BWS in health care. This study aimed to identify, review and critically appraise BWS in health care, and to identify trends over time in key aspects of BWS. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, using Medline (via Pubmed) and EMBASE to identify all English-language BWS studies published up until April 2016. Using a predefined extraction form, two reviewers independently selected articles and critically appraised the study quality, using the Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance (PREFS) checklist. Trends over time periods (≤2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015) were assessed further. RESULTS: A total of 62 BWS studies were identified, of which 26 were BWS object case studies, 29 were BWS profile case studies and seven were BWS multi-profile case studies. About two thirds of the studies were performed in the last 2 years. Decreasing sample sizes and decreasing numbers of factors in BWS object case studies, as well as use of less complicated analytical methods, were observed in recent studies. The quality of the BWS studies was generally acceptable according to the PREFS checklist, except that most studies did not indicate whether the responders were similar to the non-responders. CONCLUSION: Use of BWS object case and BWS profile case has drastically increased in health care, especially in the last 2 years. In contrast with previous discrete-choice experiment reviews, there is increasing use of less sophisticated analytical methods. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0429-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2016-07-11 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5110583/ /pubmed/27402349 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0429-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Cheung, Kei Long
Wijnen, Ben F. M.
Hollin, Ilene L.
Janssen, Ellen M.
Bridges, John F.
Evers, Silvia M. A. A.
Hiligsmann, Mickael
Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care
title Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care
title_full Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care
title_fullStr Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care
title_full_unstemmed Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care
title_short Using Best–Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care
title_sort using best–worst scaling to investigate preferences in health care
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5110583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27402349
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0429-5
work_keys_str_mv AT cheungkeilong usingbestworstscalingtoinvestigatepreferencesinhealthcare
AT wijnenbenfm usingbestworstscalingtoinvestigatepreferencesinhealthcare
AT hollinilenel usingbestworstscalingtoinvestigatepreferencesinhealthcare
AT janssenellenm usingbestworstscalingtoinvestigatepreferencesinhealthcare
AT bridgesjohnf usingbestworstscalingtoinvestigatepreferencesinhealthcare
AT everssilviamaa usingbestworstscalingtoinvestigatepreferencesinhealthcare
AT hiligsmannmickael usingbestworstscalingtoinvestigatepreferencesinhealthcare