Cargando…
Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals
INTRODUCTION: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been used to measure patient and healthcare professionals preferences in a range of settings internationally. Using DCEs in primary care is valuable for determining how to improve rational shared decision making. The purpose of this systematic re...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7725112/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33296066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-020-00295-8 |
_version_ | 1783620645810077696 |
---|---|
author | Merlo, Gregory van Driel, Mieke Hall, Lisa |
author_facet | Merlo, Gregory van Driel, Mieke Hall, Lisa |
author_sort | Merlo, Gregory |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been used to measure patient and healthcare professionals preferences in a range of settings internationally. Using DCEs in primary care is valuable for determining how to improve rational shared decision making. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the validity of the methods used for DCEs assessing the decision making of healthcare professionals in primary care. MAIN BODY: A systematic search was conducted to identify articles with original data from a discrete choice experiment where the population was primary healthcare professionals. All publication dates from database inception to 29th February 2020 were included. A data extraction and validity assessment template based on guidelines was used. After screening, 34 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. The sample sizes of the DCEs ranged from 10 to 3727. The published DCEs often provided insufficient detail about the process of determining the attributes and levels. The majority of the studies did not involve primary care healthcare professionals outside of the research team in attribute identification and selection. Less than 80% of the DCEs were piloted and few papers investigated internal or external validity. CONCLUSIONS: For findings to translate into improvements in rational shared decision making in primary care DCEs need to be internally and externally valid and the findings need to be able to be communicated to stakeholders in a way that is understandable and relevant. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7725112 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77251122020-12-10 Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals Merlo, Gregory van Driel, Mieke Hall, Lisa Health Econ Rev Review INTRODUCTION: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been used to measure patient and healthcare professionals preferences in a range of settings internationally. Using DCEs in primary care is valuable for determining how to improve rational shared decision making. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the validity of the methods used for DCEs assessing the decision making of healthcare professionals in primary care. MAIN BODY: A systematic search was conducted to identify articles with original data from a discrete choice experiment where the population was primary healthcare professionals. All publication dates from database inception to 29th February 2020 were included. A data extraction and validity assessment template based on guidelines was used. After screening, 34 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. The sample sizes of the DCEs ranged from 10 to 3727. The published DCEs often provided insufficient detail about the process of determining the attributes and levels. The majority of the studies did not involve primary care healthcare professionals outside of the research team in attribute identification and selection. Less than 80% of the DCEs were piloted and few papers investigated internal or external validity. CONCLUSIONS: For findings to translate into improvements in rational shared decision making in primary care DCEs need to be internally and externally valid and the findings need to be able to be communicated to stakeholders in a way that is understandable and relevant. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7725112/ /pubmed/33296066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-020-00295-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Merlo, Gregory van Driel, Mieke Hall, Lisa Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals |
title | Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals |
title_full | Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals |
title_fullStr | Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals |
title_full_unstemmed | Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals |
title_short | Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals |
title_sort | systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7725112/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33296066 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13561-020-00295-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT merlogregory systematicreviewandvalidityassessmentofmethodsusedindiscretechoiceexperimentsofprimaryhealthcareprofessionals AT vandrielmieke systematicreviewandvalidityassessmentofmethodsusedindiscretechoiceexperimentsofprimaryhealthcareprofessionals AT halllisa systematicreviewandvalidityassessmentofmethodsusedindiscretechoiceexperimentsofprimaryhealthcareprofessionals |