Cargando…

Stated-preference research in HIV: A scoping review

Discrete choice experiments (DCE), conjoint analysis (CA), and best-worst scaling (BWS) are quantitative techniques for estimating consumer preferences for products or services. These methods are increasingly used in healthcare research, but their applications within the field of HIV research have n...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Humphrey, John M., Naanyu, Violet, MacDonald, Katherine R., Wools-Kaloustian, Kara, Zimet, Gregory D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6821403/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31665153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224566
_version_ 1783464134021480448
author Humphrey, John M.
Naanyu, Violet
MacDonald, Katherine R.
Wools-Kaloustian, Kara
Zimet, Gregory D.
author_facet Humphrey, John M.
Naanyu, Violet
MacDonald, Katherine R.
Wools-Kaloustian, Kara
Zimet, Gregory D.
author_sort Humphrey, John M.
collection PubMed
description Discrete choice experiments (DCE), conjoint analysis (CA), and best-worst scaling (BWS) are quantitative techniques for estimating consumer preferences for products or services. These methods are increasingly used in healthcare research, but their applications within the field of HIV research have not yet been described. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically map the extent and nature of published DCE, CA, and BWS studies in the field of HIV and identify priority areas where these methods can be used in the future. Online databases were searched to identify published HIV-related DCE, CA and BWS studies in any country and year as the primary outcome. After screening 1,496 citations, 57 studies were identified that were conducted in 26 countries from 2000–2017. The frequency of published studies increased over time and covered HIV themes relating to prevention (n = 25), counselling and testing (n = 10), service delivery (n = 10), and antiretroviral therapy (n = 12). Most studies were DCEs (63%) followed by CA (37%) and BWS (4%). The median [IQR] sample size was 288 [138–496] participants, and 74% of studies used primary qualitative data to develop attributes. Only 30% of studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa where the burden of HIV is highest. Moreover, few studies surveyed key populations including men who have sex with men, transgender people, pregnant and postpartum women, adolescents, and people who inject drugs. These populations represent priorities for future stated-preference research. This scoping review can help researchers, policy makers, program implementers, and health economists to better understand the various applications of stated-preference research methods in the field of HIV.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6821403
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68214032019-11-08 Stated-preference research in HIV: A scoping review Humphrey, John M. Naanyu, Violet MacDonald, Katherine R. Wools-Kaloustian, Kara Zimet, Gregory D. PLoS One Research Article Discrete choice experiments (DCE), conjoint analysis (CA), and best-worst scaling (BWS) are quantitative techniques for estimating consumer preferences for products or services. These methods are increasingly used in healthcare research, but their applications within the field of HIV research have not yet been described. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically map the extent and nature of published DCE, CA, and BWS studies in the field of HIV and identify priority areas where these methods can be used in the future. Online databases were searched to identify published HIV-related DCE, CA and BWS studies in any country and year as the primary outcome. After screening 1,496 citations, 57 studies were identified that were conducted in 26 countries from 2000–2017. The frequency of published studies increased over time and covered HIV themes relating to prevention (n = 25), counselling and testing (n = 10), service delivery (n = 10), and antiretroviral therapy (n = 12). Most studies were DCEs (63%) followed by CA (37%) and BWS (4%). The median [IQR] sample size was 288 [138–496] participants, and 74% of studies used primary qualitative data to develop attributes. Only 30% of studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa where the burden of HIV is highest. Moreover, few studies surveyed key populations including men who have sex with men, transgender people, pregnant and postpartum women, adolescents, and people who inject drugs. These populations represent priorities for future stated-preference research. This scoping review can help researchers, policy makers, program implementers, and health economists to better understand the various applications of stated-preference research methods in the field of HIV. Public Library of Science 2019-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6821403/ /pubmed/31665153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224566 Text en © 2019 Humphrey et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Humphrey, John M.
Naanyu, Violet
MacDonald, Katherine R.
Wools-Kaloustian, Kara
Zimet, Gregory D.
Stated-preference research in HIV: A scoping review
title Stated-preference research in HIV: A scoping review
title_full Stated-preference research in HIV: A scoping review
title_fullStr Stated-preference research in HIV: A scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Stated-preference research in HIV: A scoping review
title_short Stated-preference research in HIV: A scoping review
title_sort stated-preference research in hiv: a scoping review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6821403/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31665153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224566
work_keys_str_mv AT humphreyjohnm statedpreferenceresearchinhivascopingreview
AT naanyuviolet statedpreferenceresearchinhivascopingreview
AT macdonaldkatheriner statedpreferenceresearchinhivascopingreview
AT woolskaloustiankara statedpreferenceresearchinhivascopingreview
AT zimetgregoryd statedpreferenceresearchinhivascopingreview