Cargando…

Feasibility of a best–worst scaling exercise to set priorities for autism research

BACKGROUND: The preferences of autism stakeholders regarding the top priorities for future autism research are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study had two objectives: First, to examine what autism stakeholders think new research investments should be and the attributes of investment that they con...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Davis, Scott A., Howard, Kirsten, Ellis, Alan R., Jonas, Daniel E., Carey, Timothy S., Morrissey, Joseph P., Thomas, Kathleen C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9327819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35678017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13508
_version_ 1784757582946107392
author Davis, Scott A.
Howard, Kirsten
Ellis, Alan R.
Jonas, Daniel E.
Carey, Timothy S.
Morrissey, Joseph P.
Thomas, Kathleen C.
author_facet Davis, Scott A.
Howard, Kirsten
Ellis, Alan R.
Jonas, Daniel E.
Carey, Timothy S.
Morrissey, Joseph P.
Thomas, Kathleen C.
author_sort Davis, Scott A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The preferences of autism stakeholders regarding the top priorities for future autism research are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study had two objectives: First, to examine what autism stakeholders think new research investments should be and the attributes of investment that they consider important, and second, to explore the feasibility, acceptability and outcomes of two prioritization exercises among autism stakeholders regarding their priorities for future research in autism. DESIGN: This was  a prospective stakeholder‐engaged iterative study consisting of best–worst scaling (BWS) and direct prioritization exercise. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A national snowball sample of 219 stakeholders was included: adults with autism, caregivers, service providers and researchers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes measures were attributes that participants value in future research investments, and priority research investments for future research. RESULTS: Two hundred and nineteen participants completed the exercises, of whom 11% were adults with autism, 58% were parents/family members, 37% were service providers and 21% were researchers. Among stakeholders, the BWS exercises were easier to understand than the direct prioritization, less frequently skipped and yielded more consistent results. The proportion of children with autism affected by the research was the most important attribute for all types of stakeholders. The top three priorities among future research investments were (1) evidence on which child, family and intervention characteristics lead to the best/worst outcomes; (2) evidence on how changes in one area of a child's life are related to changes in other areas; and (3) evidence on dietary interventions. Priorities were similar for all stakeholder types. CONCLUSIONS: The values and priorities examined here provide a road map for investigators and funders to pursue autism research that matters to stakeholders. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Stakeholders completed a BWS and direct prioritization exercise to inform us about their priorities for future autism research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9327819
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93278192022-08-01 Feasibility of a best–worst scaling exercise to set priorities for autism research Davis, Scott A. Howard, Kirsten Ellis, Alan R. Jonas, Daniel E. Carey, Timothy S. Morrissey, Joseph P. Thomas, Kathleen C. Health Expect Original Articles BACKGROUND: The preferences of autism stakeholders regarding the top priorities for future autism research are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study had two objectives: First, to examine what autism stakeholders think new research investments should be and the attributes of investment that they consider important, and second, to explore the feasibility, acceptability and outcomes of two prioritization exercises among autism stakeholders regarding their priorities for future research in autism. DESIGN: This was  a prospective stakeholder‐engaged iterative study consisting of best–worst scaling (BWS) and direct prioritization exercise. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A national snowball sample of 219 stakeholders was included: adults with autism, caregivers, service providers and researchers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes measures were attributes that participants value in future research investments, and priority research investments for future research. RESULTS: Two hundred and nineteen participants completed the exercises, of whom 11% were adults with autism, 58% were parents/family members, 37% were service providers and 21% were researchers. Among stakeholders, the BWS exercises were easier to understand than the direct prioritization, less frequently skipped and yielded more consistent results. The proportion of children with autism affected by the research was the most important attribute for all types of stakeholders. The top three priorities among future research investments were (1) evidence on which child, family and intervention characteristics lead to the best/worst outcomes; (2) evidence on how changes in one area of a child's life are related to changes in other areas; and (3) evidence on dietary interventions. Priorities were similar for all stakeholder types. CONCLUSIONS: The values and priorities examined here provide a road map for investigators and funders to pursue autism research that matters to stakeholders. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Stakeholders completed a BWS and direct prioritization exercise to inform us about their priorities for future autism research. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-08 2022-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9327819/ /pubmed/35678017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13508 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Davis, Scott A.
Howard, Kirsten
Ellis, Alan R.
Jonas, Daniel E.
Carey, Timothy S.
Morrissey, Joseph P.
Thomas, Kathleen C.
Feasibility of a best–worst scaling exercise to set priorities for autism research
title Feasibility of a best–worst scaling exercise to set priorities for autism research
title_full Feasibility of a best–worst scaling exercise to set priorities for autism research
title_fullStr Feasibility of a best–worst scaling exercise to set priorities for autism research
title_full_unstemmed Feasibility of a best–worst scaling exercise to set priorities for autism research
title_short Feasibility of a best–worst scaling exercise to set priorities for autism research
title_sort feasibility of a best–worst scaling exercise to set priorities for autism research
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9327819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35678017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13508
work_keys_str_mv AT davisscotta feasibilityofabestworstscalingexercisetosetprioritiesforautismresearch
AT howardkirsten feasibilityofabestworstscalingexercisetosetprioritiesforautismresearch
AT ellisalanr feasibilityofabestworstscalingexercisetosetprioritiesforautismresearch
AT jonasdaniele feasibilityofabestworstscalingexercisetosetprioritiesforautismresearch
AT careytimothys feasibilityofabestworstscalingexercisetosetprioritiesforautismresearch
AT morrisseyjosephp feasibilityofabestworstscalingexercisetosetprioritiesforautismresearch
AT thomaskathleenc feasibilityofabestworstscalingexercisetosetprioritiesforautismresearch