Attribute Development Using Continuous Stakeholder Engagement to Prioritize Treatment Decisions: A Framework for Patient-Centered Research

被引:21
作者
dosReis, Susan [1 ]
Castillo, Wendy Camelo [1 ]
Ross, Melissa [1 ]
Fitz-Randolph, Marcy [2 ]
Vaughn-Lee, Angela [3 ]
Butler, Beverly [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Maryland, Sch Pharm, Dept Pharmaceut Hlth Serv Res, 220 Arch St, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
[2] PatientsLikeMe, Cambridge, MA USA
[3] Univ Maryland PIONEER Study Community Partners, Baltimore, MD USA
关键词
attribute development; health care decision making; qualitative methods; stated preferences; DISCRETE-CHOICE EXPERIMENT; DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER; PARENT PREFERENCES; ADHD; CARE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.013
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objectives: To develop a methodological approach for selecting, validating, and prioritizing attributes for health care decision making. Methods: Participants (n = 48) were recruited from community support groups if they had a child aged 26 years or younger diagnosed with a coexisting mental health condition and cognitive impairment. Six in-depth interviews eliciting care management experiences were transcribed and coded into themes following the principles of grounded theory and the constant comparative method. Six focus groups involving 42 participants assessed the relevance, priority, and meaning and inter-relationship among the themes. The positive predictive value and sensitivity assessed agreement on thematic meaning. A final list was selected from the top priorities with good agreement as candidate attributes. Attribute levels reflecting the range of experiences in care management decisions emerged from the verbatim passages within each coded theme. Results: Participants were the child's mother (73%), white (77%), married (69%), and on average 48 years old. The children were on average 14 years old; 44% had an intellectual disability, 25% had autism, and more than half had anxiety or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. All 14 attributes identified from the in-depth interviews were deemed relevant. The positive predictive value exceeded 90%, and the sensitivity ranged from 64% to 89%. The final set of attributes formed the framework for care management decisions consisting of six attributes (medication, behavior, services, social, treatment effects, and school) each with three levels. Conclusions: A systematic approach grounded in qualitative methods produced a framework of relevant, important, and actionable attributes representing competing alternatives in clinical decisions.
引用
收藏
页码:758 / 766
页数:9
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]   Developing attributes and attribute-levels for a discrete choice experiment on micro health insurance in rural Malawi [J].
Abiiro, Gilbert Abotisem ;
Leppert, Gerald ;
Mbera, Grace Bongololo ;
Robyn, Paul J. ;
De Allegri, Manuela .
BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2014, 14
[2]  
Bridges John F P, 2003, Appl Health Econ Health Policy, V2, P213
[3]   Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health-a Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force [J].
Bridges, John F. P. ;
Hauber, A. Brett ;
Marshall, Deborah ;
Lloyd, Andrew ;
Prosser, Lisa A. ;
Regier, Dean A. ;
Johnson, F. Reed ;
Mauskopf, Josephine .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2011, 14 (04) :403-413
[4]  
Coast Joanna, 2007, J Health Serv Res Policy, V12, P25, DOI 10.1258/135581907779497602
[5]   Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations [J].
Coast, Joanna ;
Al-Janabi, Hareth ;
Sutton, Eileen J. ;
Horrocks, Susan A. ;
Vosper, A. Jane ;
Swancutt, Dawn R. ;
Flynn, Terry N. .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2012, 21 (06) :730-741
[6]   GROUNDED THEORY RESEARCH - PROCEDURES, CANONS AND EVALUATIVE CRITERIA [J].
CORBIN, J ;
STRAUSS, A .
ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SOZIOLOGIE, 1990, 19 (06) :418-427
[7]  
Creswell JW, QUALITATIVE INQUIRY, P47
[8]  
Fegert JM, 2011, EXPERT REV PHARM OUT, V11, P245
[9]   THE CONSTANT COMPARATIVE METHOD OF QUALITATIVE-ANALYSIS [J].
GLASER, BG .
SOCIAL PROBLEMS, 1965, 12 (04) :436-445
[10]   Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: Preferences or capabilities? [J].
Grewal, I ;
Lewis, J ;
Flynn, T ;
Brown, J ;
Bond, J ;
Coast, J .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2006, 62 (08) :1891-1901