The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments
Caroline Mary Vass, Dan Rigby, Katherine A. Payne
University of Manchester
阅读操作
确认中在文库中上传 PDF 后可生成中文音频讲解。
摘要与影响
BACKGROUND: The use of qualitative research (QR) methods is recommended as good practice in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). This study investigated the use and reporting of QR to inform the design and/or interpretation of healthcare-related DCEs and explored the perceived usefulness of such methods. METHODS: DCEs were identified from a systematic search of the MEDLINE database. Studies were classified by the quantity of QR reported (none, basic, or extensive). Authors ( n = 91) of papers reporting the use of QR were invited to complete an online survey eliciting their views about using the methods. RESULTS: A total of 254 healthcare DCEs were included in the review; of these, 111 (44%) did not report using any qualitative methods; 114 (45%) reported "basic" information; and 29 (11%) reported or cited "extensive" use of qualitative methods. Studies reporting the use of qualitative methods used them to select attributes and/or levels ( n = 95; 66%) and/or pilot the DCE survey ( n = 26; 18%). Popular qualitative methods included focus groups ( n = 63; 44%) and interviews ( n = 109; 76%). Forty-four studies (31%) reported the analytical approach, with content ( n = 10; 7%) and framework analysis ( n = 5; 4%) most commonly reported. The survey identified that all responding authors ( n = 50; 100%) found that qualitative methods added value to their DCE study, but many ( n = 22; 44%) reported that journals were uninterested in the reporting of QR results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations that QR methods be used alongside DCEs, the use of QR methods is not consistently reported. The lack of reporting risks the inference that QR methods are of little use in DCE research, contradicting practitioners' assessments. Explicit guidelines would enable more clarity and consistency in reporting, and journals should facilitate such reporting via online supplementary materials.
逐年被引趋势
关键指标
同类平均 = 1
同领域 · 同年份 · 同类型
Google Scholar 与 OpenAlex 的被引统计范围不同,数值存在差异属正常。
AI 辅助阅读
依据:摘要
可就本文提问;依据不足时会说明。
学术脉络
学科主题
经济 / 管理Economic and Environmental Valuation
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Delphi Technique in Research
参考文献 114
此处列出前 3 条
引用本文 175
按被引量排序,此处列出前 3 条