Cargando…

Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states

INTRODUCTION: Health state valuation studies using composite time trade-off (cTTO) interviews have historically been conducted face-to-face. The COVID-19 pandemic forced disruptive innovation meaning a number of valuation studies conducted interviews via videoconference. These studies found online i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peasgood, Tessa, Bourke, Mackenzie, Devlin, Nancy, Rowen, Donna, Yang, Yaling, Dalziel, Kim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9993735/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36940582
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115818
_version_ 1784902572394414080
author Peasgood, Tessa
Bourke, Mackenzie
Devlin, Nancy
Rowen, Donna
Yang, Yaling
Dalziel, Kim
author_facet Peasgood, Tessa
Bourke, Mackenzie
Devlin, Nancy
Rowen, Donna
Yang, Yaling
Dalziel, Kim
author_sort Peasgood, Tessa
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Health state valuation studies using composite time trade-off (cTTO) interviews have historically been conducted face-to-face. The COVID-19 pandemic forced disruptive innovation meaning a number of valuation studies conducted interviews via videoconference. These studies found online interviews feasible and acceptable; however, studies were not constructed to test the impact of online versus face-to-face interviews. This study builds on its sister study from the UK and aims to assess the acceptability and equivalence of in person face-to-face interviews with online interviews on cTTO valuation outcomes and on data quality. METHODS: Participants were recruited into a randomised equivalence study via an external research company. Consenting participants were randomly allocated to complete a cTTO interview face-to-face or online, using the same 10 EQ-5D-5L health states. Mean and distribution of the cTTO values, participant understanding, data quality, demographic characteristics, participant preference, participant engagement and participant feedback were all compared across interview mode. Statistical equivalence for cTTO values for each state was tested using two one-sided t-tests by mode. Finally, regression analysis was completed to assess the impacts of interview mode on cTTO value while controlling for demographic characteristics of the participants. RESULTS: Mean cTTO values were shown to be equivalent for mild health states and showed no significant difference for serious health states. The proportion of individuals who expressed an interest in the study but declined to arrange an interview after finding out their randomisation was significantly higher for the face-to-face (21.6%) than the online group (1.8%). No significant difference was found between groups for participant engagement, understanding or feedback nor for any indicators of data quality. CONCLUSION: Administrating interviews face to face or online did not appear to have a statistically significant impact on mean cTTO values. Offering both online and face-to-face interviews routinely allows all participants to select the most convenient option.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9993735
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99937352023-03-08 Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states Peasgood, Tessa Bourke, Mackenzie Devlin, Nancy Rowen, Donna Yang, Yaling Dalziel, Kim Soc Sci Med Article INTRODUCTION: Health state valuation studies using composite time trade-off (cTTO) interviews have historically been conducted face-to-face. The COVID-19 pandemic forced disruptive innovation meaning a number of valuation studies conducted interviews via videoconference. These studies found online interviews feasible and acceptable; however, studies were not constructed to test the impact of online versus face-to-face interviews. This study builds on its sister study from the UK and aims to assess the acceptability and equivalence of in person face-to-face interviews with online interviews on cTTO valuation outcomes and on data quality. METHODS: Participants were recruited into a randomised equivalence study via an external research company. Consenting participants were randomly allocated to complete a cTTO interview face-to-face or online, using the same 10 EQ-5D-5L health states. Mean and distribution of the cTTO values, participant understanding, data quality, demographic characteristics, participant preference, participant engagement and participant feedback were all compared across interview mode. Statistical equivalence for cTTO values for each state was tested using two one-sided t-tests by mode. Finally, regression analysis was completed to assess the impacts of interview mode on cTTO value while controlling for demographic characteristics of the participants. RESULTS: Mean cTTO values were shown to be equivalent for mild health states and showed no significant difference for serious health states. The proportion of individuals who expressed an interest in the study but declined to arrange an interview after finding out their randomisation was significantly higher for the face-to-face (21.6%) than the online group (1.8%). No significant difference was found between groups for participant engagement, understanding or feedback nor for any indicators of data quality. CONCLUSION: Administrating interviews face to face or online did not appear to have a statistically significant impact on mean cTTO values. Offering both online and face-to-face interviews routinely allows all participants to select the most convenient option. The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2023-04 2023-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9993735/ /pubmed/36940582 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115818 Text en © 2023 The Authors Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Article
Peasgood, Tessa
Bourke, Mackenzie
Devlin, Nancy
Rowen, Donna
Yang, Yaling
Dalziel, Kim
Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states
title Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states
title_full Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states
title_fullStr Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states
title_full_unstemmed Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states
title_short Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states
title_sort randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9993735/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36940582
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115818
work_keys_str_mv AT peasgoodtessa randomisedcomparisonofonlineinterviewsversusfacetofaceinterviewstovaluehealthstates
AT bourkemackenzie randomisedcomparisonofonlineinterviewsversusfacetofaceinterviewstovaluehealthstates
AT devlinnancy randomisedcomparisonofonlineinterviewsversusfacetofaceinterviewstovaluehealthstates
AT rowendonna randomisedcomparisonofonlineinterviewsversusfacetofaceinterviewstovaluehealthstates
AT yangyaling randomisedcomparisonofonlineinterviewsversusfacetofaceinterviewstovaluehealthstates
AT dalzielkim randomisedcomparisonofonlineinterviewsversusfacetofaceinterviewstovaluehealthstates