Suppr超能文献

访谈者协助回答时间权衡问题的定性与定量分析

Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Interviewer Help Answering the Time Tradeoff.

作者信息

Edelaar-Peeters Yvette, Stiggelbout Anne M, Van Den Hout Wilbert B

机构信息

Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands (YEP, AMS, WBV).

出版信息

Med Decis Making. 2014 Jul;34(5):655-65. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14524989. Epub 2014 Mar 25.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The time tradeoff (TTO) is an important method to directly obtain health utilities. Challenges of the TTO are, among others, "nontraders" and illogical answers. In TTO interviews, these challenges are resolved by the interviewer. In web-based TTOs, training procedures and logical checks are used based on the views of the researchers. As web-based TTOs will be used more often in the future, we investigated how respondents arrive at their ratings to determine the help they require.

METHODS

In 2 earlier studies performed by this research group, respondents valued 6 EQ-5D states on a TTO. Respondents were asked to think out loud, and all interviews were audiotaped. A random selection of these interviews were transcribed and double-coded by two independent raters, using a priori and inductive coding until saturation was reached. Based on the retrieved mistakes and comments, a list of frequently asked questions (FAQ) was developed.

RESULTS

In total, 91 interviews were coded. In all, 85% made at least 1 mistake, 41% made a misreading/miscalculation, 70% misunderstood the tradeoff, 27% misunderstood the EQ-5D dimensions, 29% misunderstood the scenario, 45% made a comment about the TTO, and 43% expressed frustration. More misunderstandings were reported in the Peeters study, which was performed in a realistic setting, whereas the van Osch study was conducted in a more ideal setting. Misunderstandings of the scenario were mosly reported by patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost all respondents need interviewer help. This may have implications for the validity of interviewer-based TTO elicitations when social acceptability bias is an issue or with explicit hypothesis and the interviewer is not blinded. The FAQ list can be used to standardize interviewer help or as a help function in a web-based TTO.

摘要

目的

时间权衡法(TTO)是直接获取健康效用值的重要方法。TTO面临的挑战包括“非交易者”和不合逻辑的回答等。在TTO访谈中,这些挑战由访谈者解决。在基于网络的TTO中,根据研究人员的观点采用了培训程序和逻辑检查。鉴于基于网络的TTO未来将更频繁地使用,我们调查了受访者如何得出他们的评分,以确定他们需要何种帮助。

方法

在该研究团队之前进行的两项研究中,受访者对6种EQ-5D健康状态进行了TTO估值。要求受访者边思考边说出想法,所有访谈均进行了录音。随机抽取部分访谈进行转录,并由两名独立评分者进行双重编码,采用先验编码和归纳编码,直至达到饱和状态。根据检索到的错误和评论,制定了一份常见问题清单。

结果

总共对91次访谈进行了编码。总体而言,85%的受访者至少犯了1个错误,41%的受访者存在误读/误算,70%的受访者误解了权衡关系,27%的受访者误解了EQ-5D维度,29%的受访者误解了情景,45%的受访者对TTO发表了评论,43%的受访者表达了沮丧情绪。在更贴近现实环境中进行的彼得斯研究中报告的误解更多,而范·奥斯研究是在更理想的环境中进行的。情景误解大多由患者报告。

结论

几乎所有受访者都需要访谈者的帮助。当社会可接受性偏差成为一个问题时,或者在有明确假设且访谈者未设盲的情况下,这可能会对基于访谈者的TTO引出结果的有效性产生影响。常见问题清单可用于规范访谈者的帮助,或作为基于网络的TTO中的帮助功能。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验