Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 4/2022

18-10-2021 | Commentary

Transforming challenges into opportunities: conducting health preference research during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond

Auteurs: Manraj N. Kaur, Richard L. Skolasky, Philip A. Powell, Feng Xie, I-Chan Huang, Ayse Kuspinar, John L. O’Dwyer, Amy M. Cizik, Donna Rowen

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2022

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

The disruptions to health research during the COVID-19 pandemic are being recognized globally, and there is a growing need for understanding the pandemic’s impact on the health and health preferences of patients, caregivers, and the general public. Ongoing and planned health preference research (HPR) has been affected due to problems associated with recruitment, data collection, and data interpretation. While there are no “one size fits all” solutions, this commentary summarizes the key challenges in HPR within the context of the pandemic and offers pragmatic solutions and directions for future research. We recommend recruitment of a diverse, typically under-represented population in HPR using online, quota-based crowdsourcing platforms, and community partnerships. We foresee emerging evidence on remote, and telephone-based HPR modes of administration, with further studies on the shifts in preferences related to health and healthcare services as a result of the pandemic. We believe that the recalibration of HPR, due to what one would hope is an impermanent change, will permanently change how we conduct HPR in the future.
vorige artikel A comparison of the influencing factors of chronic pain and quality of life between older Koreans and Korean–Americans with chronic pain: a correlational study
volgende artikel Time trade-off with someone to live for: impact of having significant others on time trade-off valuations of hypothetical health states
Literatuur
1.
Craig, B. M., Lancsar, E., Mühlbacher, A. C., Brown, D. S., & Ostermann, J. (2017). Health preference research: An overview. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 10(4), 507–510.CrossRef
2.
3.
Clancy, C. M., & Eisenberg, J. M. (1998). Outcomes research: Measuring the end results of health care. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 282(5387), 245–246.CrossRef
4.
Patel, S. S., Webster, R. K., Greenberg, N., Weston, D., & Brooks, S. K. (2020). Research fatigue in COVID-19 pandemic and post-disaster research: Causes, consequences and recommendations. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 29(4), 445–455.CrossRef
5.
Sullivan, T., Hansen, P., Ombler, F., Derrett, S., & Devlin, N. (2020). A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing ‘dead.’ Social Science & Medicine, 246, 112707.CrossRef
6.
Norman, R., King, M. T., Clarke, D., Viney, R., Cronin, P., & Street, D. (2010). Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 499–508.CrossRef
7.
Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rowen, D., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Pickard, A. S., Street, D. J., Viney, R., Revicki, D., King, M. T., & European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group and the MAUCa Consortium. (2019). UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Economics, 28(12), 1385–1401.CrossRef
8.
Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Keetharuth, A., Tsuchiya, A., & Mukuria, C. (2016). Comparison of modes of administration and alternative formats for eliciting societal preferences for burden of illness. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 14(1), 89–104.CrossRef
9.
Mulhern, B., Longworth, L., Brazier, J., Rowen, D., Bansback, N., Devlin, N., & Tsuchiya, A. (2013). Binary choice health state valuation and mode of administration: Head-to-head comparison of online and CAPI. Value in Health, 16(1), 104–113.CrossRef
10.
Angeliki, N. M., Olsen, S. B., & Tsagarakis, K. P. (2016). Towards a common standard–a reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys. Journal of Choice Modelling, 18, 18–50.CrossRef
11.
Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., Lenderking, W. R., Cella, D., Basch, E., & ISPOR ePRO Task Force. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 419–429.CrossRef
12.
Hay, J. W., Gong, C. L., Jiao, X., Zawadzki, N. K., Zawadzki, R. S., Pickard, A. S., Xie, F., Crawford, S. A., & Gu, N. Y. (2021). A US population health survey on the impact of COVID-19 using the EQ-5D-5L. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 36(5), 1292–1301.CrossRef
13.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.CrossRef
14.
Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2018). Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5 D-5 L value set for England. Health Economics, 27(1), 7–22.CrossRef
15.
Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108.CrossRef
16.
Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Young, T., Gaugris, S., Craig, B. M., King, M. T., & Velikova, G. (2011). Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value in Health, 14(5), 721–731.CrossRef
17.
Mermet-Bouvier, P., & Whalen, M. D. (2020). Vulnerability and clinical research: Mapping the challenges for stakeholders. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 54(5), 1037–1046.CrossRef
18.
Patrick, K., Flegel, K., & Stanbrook, M. B. (2018). Vulnerable populations: An area CMAJ will continue to champion. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 190(11), E307.CrossRef
19.
Chokkara, S., Volerman, A., Ramesh, S., & Laiteerapong, N. (2021). Examining the inclusivity of US trials of COVID-19 treatment. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 36(5), 1443–1445.CrossRef
20.
Young, L., Barnason, S., & Do, V. (2015). Review strategies to recruit and retain rural patient participating self-management behavioral trials. Online Journal of Rural Research and Policy, 10(2), 1.CrossRef
21.
Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(3), 498–507.CrossRef
22.
Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economics, 5(2), 141–154.CrossRef
23.
Sayah, F. A., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., Poissant, L., Pullenayegum, E., Xie, F., & Johnson, J. A. (2016). Determinants of time trade-off valuations for EQ-5D-5L health states: Data from the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study. Quality of Life Research, 25(7), 1679–1685.CrossRef
24.
Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17(4), 445–453.CrossRef
25.
Mulhern, B. J., Bansback, N., Norman, R., Brazier, J., & SF-6Dv2 International Project Group. (2020). Valuing the SF-6Dv2 classification system in the United Kingdom using a discrete-choice experiment with duration. Medical Care, 58(6), 566–573.CrossRef
26.
Jiang, R., Kohlmann, T., Lee, T. A., Mühlbacher, A., Shaw, J., Walton, S., & Pickard, A. S. (2020). Increasing respondent engagement in composite time trade-off tasks by imposing three minimum trade-offs to improve data quality. The European Journal of Health Economics, 22, 1–17.
27.
Zhuo, L., Xu, L., Ye, J., Sun, S., Zhang, Y., Burstrom, K., & Chen, J. (2018). Time trade-off value set for EQ-5D-3L based on a nationally representative Chinese population survey. Value in Health, 21(11), 1330–1337.CrossRef
28.
Ratcliffe, J., Flynn, T., Terlich, F., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., & Sawyer, M. (2012). Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation. PharmacoEconomics, 30(8), 713–727.CrossRef
29.
Rogers, H. J., Marshman, Z., Rodd, H., & Rowen, D. (2021). Discrete choice experiments or best-worst scaling? A qualitative study to determine the suitability of preference elicitation tasks in research with children and young people. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 5(1), 1–11.CrossRef
30.
Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Mulhern, B. J., Pantiri, K., & van Hout, B. (2019). A new method for valuing health: Directly eliciting personal utility functions. The European Journal of Health Economics, 20(2), 257–270.CrossRef
31.
Lipman, S. A. (2020). Time for tele-TTO? Lessons learned from digital interviewer-assisted time trade-off data collection. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 14, 1–11.
32.
Hewson, C., & Stewart, D. W. (2014). Internet research methods. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics reference online (pp. 1–6). Wiley.
33.
34.
35.
Pozzar, R., Hammer, M. J., Underhill-Blazey, M., Wright, A. A., Tulsky, J. A., Hong, F., Gundersen, D. A., & Berry, D. L. (2020). Threats of bots and other bad actors to data quality following research participant recruitment through social media: Cross-sectional questionnaire. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(10), e23021.CrossRef
36.
Storozuk, A., Ashley, M., Delage, V., & Maloney, E. A. (2020). Got bots? Practical recommendations to protect online survey data from bot attacks. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16(5), 472–481.CrossRef
37.
Teitcher, J. E., Bockting, W. O., Bauermeister, J. A., Hoefer, C. J., Miner, M. H., & Klitzman, R. L. (2015). Detecting, preventing, and responding to “fraudsters” in internet research: Ethics and tradeoffs. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 43(1), 116–133.CrossRef
38.
Vass, C. M., & Boeri, M. (2021). Mobilising the next generation of stated-preference studies: The association of access device with choice behaviour and data quality. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 14(1), 55–63.CrossRef
39.
Lenert, L. A., Sturley, A., & Rupnow, M. (2003). Toward improved methods for measurement of utility: Automated repair of errors in elicitations. Medical Decision Making, 23(1), 67–75.CrossRef
40.
Abbey, J. D., & Meloy, M. G. (2017). Attention by design: Using attention checks to detect inattentive respondents and improve data quality. Journal of Operations Management, 53, 63–70.CrossRef
41.
Wise, T., Zbozinek, T. D., Michelini, G., Hagan, C. C., & Mobbs, D. (2020). Changes in risk perception and self-reported protective behaviour during the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Royal Society open science, 7(9), 200742.CrossRef
42.
Mazza, C., Ricci, E., Biondi, S., Colasanti, M., Ferracuti, S., Napoli, C., & Roma, P. (2020). A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Italian people during the COVID-19 pandemic: Immediate psychological responses and associated factors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), 3165.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Transforming challenges into opportunities: conducting health preference research during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond
Auteurs
Manraj N. Kaur
Richard L. Skolasky
Philip A. Powell
Feng Xie
I-Chan Huang
Ayse Kuspinar
John L. O’Dwyer
Amy M. Cizik
Donna Rowen
Publicatiedatum
18-10-2021
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-03012-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2022

Quality of Life Research 4/2022 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Time trade-off with someone to live for: impact of having significant others on time trade-off valuations of hypothetical health states

OriginalPaper

Quality of life among women with symptomatic, screen-detected, and interval breast cancer, and for women without breast cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional study from Norway

OriginalPaper

Efficacy of physical therapy interventions on quality of life and upper quadrant pain severity in women with post-mastectomy pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OriginalPaper

Missing data strategies for the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Alliance A091105 and COMET-2

OriginalPaper

A longitudinal view of successful aging with HIV: role of resilience and environmental factors

OriginalPaper

Measurement invariance of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire in coronary artery disease