• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

动员下一代意愿调查研究:接入设备与选择行为和数据质量的关联。

Mobilising the Next Generation of Stated-Preference Studies: the Association of Access Device with Choice Behaviour and Data Quality.

机构信息

RTI Health Solutions, The Pavilion, Towers Business Park, Wilmslow Road, Didsbury, Manchester, UK.

The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

出版信息

Patient. 2021 Jan;14(1):55-63. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00484-x. Epub 2020 Dec 23.

DOI:10.1007/s40271-020-00484-x
PMID:33355916
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Literature reviews show stated-preference studies, used to understand the values individuals place on health and health care, are increasingly administered online, potentially maximising respondent access and allowing for enhanced response quality. Online respondents may often choose whether to use a desktop or laptop personal computer (PC), tablet or smartphone, all with different screen sizes and modes of data entry, to complete the survey. To avoid differences in measurement errors, frequently respondents are asked to complete the surveys on a PC despite evidence that handheld devices are increasingly used for internet browsing. As yet, it is unknown if or how the device used to access the survey affects responses and/or the subsequent valuations derived.

METHOD

This study uses data from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) administered online to elicit preferences of a general population sample of females for a national breast screening programme. The analysis explores differences in key outcomes such as completion rates, engagement with the survey materials, respondent characteristics, response time, failure of an internal validity test and health care preferences for (1) handheld devices and (2) PC users. Preferences were analysed using a fully correlated random parameter logit (RPL) model to allow for unexplained scale and preference heterogeneity.

RESULTS

One thousand respondents completed the survey in its entirety. The most popular access devices were PCs (n = 785), including Windows (n = 705) and Macbooks (n = 69). Two-hundred and fifteen respondents accessed the survey on a handheld device. Most outcomes related to survey behaviour, including failure of a dominance check, 'flat lining', self-reported attribute non-attendance (ANA) or respondent-rated task difficulty, did not differ by device type (p > 0.100). Respondents accessing the survey using a PC were generally quicker (median time to completion 14.5 min compared with 16 min for those using handheld devices) and were significantly less likely to speed through a webpage. Although there was evidence of preference intensity (taste) or variability (scale) heterogeneity across respondents in the sample, it was not driven by the access device.

CONCLUSION

Overall, we find that neither preferences nor choice behaviour is associated with the type of access device, as long as respondents are presented with question formats that are easy to use on small touchscreens. Health preference researchers should optimise preference instruments for a range of devices and encourage respondents to complete the surveys using their preferred device. However, we suggest that access device characteristics should be gathered and included when reporting results.

摘要

背景

文献综述表明,用于了解个人对健康和医疗保健的价值观的意愿性偏好研究越来越多地在网上进行,这可能最大限度地增加了受访者的访问机会,并提高了响应质量。在线受访者通常可以选择使用台式或笔记本个人计算机(PC)、平板电脑或智能手机来完成调查,这些设备的屏幕尺寸和数据输入方式都不同。为了避免测量误差的差异,尽管有证据表明手持设备越来越多地用于浏览互联网,但经常要求受访者在 PC 上完成调查。到目前为止,尚不清楚使用何种设备访问调查是否会影响响应和/或随后得出的评估。

方法

本研究使用在线离散选择实验(DCE)的数据,来了解女性对全国乳房筛查计划的偏好。该分析探讨了关键结果的差异,例如完成率、对调查材料的参与度、受访者特征、响应时间、内部有效性测试失败以及(1)手持设备和(2)PC 用户的医疗保健偏好。使用完全相关随机参数对数模型(RPL)分析偏好,以允许解释规模和偏好异质性。

结果

1000 名受访者完整地完成了调查。最受欢迎的访问设备是 PC(n=785),包括 Windows(n=705)和 Macbook(n=69)。215 名受访者使用手持设备访问了调查。与设备类型无关(p>0.100),与调查行为相关的大多数结果,包括支配检验失败、“平板线”、自我报告的属性未出席(ANA)或受访者评定的任务难度,都没有差异。使用 PC 访问调查的受访者通常完成速度更快(完成时间中位数为 14.5 分钟,而使用手持设备的受访者为 16 分钟),并且不太可能快速浏览网页。尽管样本中受访者存在偏好强度(口味)或可变性(规模)异质性的证据,但这并不是由访问设备驱动的。

结论

总体而言,我们发现只要向受访者提供在小触摸屏上易于使用的问题格式,偏好和选择行为都与访问设备的类型无关。健康偏好研究人员应针对各种设备优化偏好工具,并鼓励受访者使用其首选设备完成调查。但是,我们建议在报告结果时应收集并包含访问设备特征。

相似文献

1
Mobilising the Next Generation of Stated-Preference Studies: the Association of Access Device with Choice Behaviour and Data Quality.动员下一代意愿调查研究:接入设备与选择行为和数据质量的关联。
Patient. 2021 Jan;14(1):55-63. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00484-x. Epub 2020 Dec 23.
2
A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies.一图胜千言:问卷调查培训材料在意愿调查研究中的作用。
Patient. 2020 Apr;13(2):163-173. doi: 10.1007/s40271-019-00391-w.
3
Does Device or Connection Type Affect Health Preferences in Online Surveys?设备或连接类型会影响在线调查中的健康偏好吗?
Patient. 2019 Dec;12(6):639-650. doi: 10.1007/s40271-019-00380-z.
4
Impact of Survey Administration Mode on the Results of a Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiment: Online and Paper Comparison.调查管理模式对健康相关离散选择实验结果的影响:在线与纸质调查的比较
Value Health. 2017 Jul-Aug;20(7):953-960. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.02.007. Epub 2017 Mar 28.
5
Comparison of Preferences and Data Quality between Discrete Choice Experiments Conducted in Online and Face-to-Face Respondents.在线和面对面受访者进行的离散选择实验中的偏好和数据质量比较。
Med Decis Making. 2023 Aug;43(6):667-679. doi: 10.1177/0272989X231171912. Epub 2023 May 18.
6
Choosing vs. allocating: discrete choice experiments and constant-sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences.选择与分配:用于引出社会偏好的离散选择实验和恒定总和配对比较
Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):1227-40. doi: 10.1111/hex.12098. Epub 2013 Jun 12.
7
Preferences for HIV testing services among men who have sex with men in the UK: A discrete choice experiment.英国男男性行为者对 HIV 检测服务的偏好:一项离散选择实验。
PLoS Med. 2019 Apr 11;16(4):e1002779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002779. eCollection 2019 Apr.
8
Modeling Heterogeneity in Patients' Preferences for Psoriasis Treatments in a Multicountry Study: A Comparison Between Random-Parameters Logit and Latent Class Approaches.在一项多国家研究中对患者对银屑病治疗偏好的异质性建模:随机参数逻辑和潜在类别方法的比较。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2020 Jun;38(6):593-606. doi: 10.1007/s40273-020-00894-7.
9
Attribute nonattendance in COVID-19 vaccine choice: A discrete choice experiment based on Chinese public preference.对 COVID-19 疫苗选择的属性非参与:基于中国公众偏好的离散选择实验。
Health Expect. 2022 Jun;25(3):959-970. doi: 10.1111/hex.13439. Epub 2022 Jan 20.
10
Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance: A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences.比较离散选择实验和挥重法估计属性相对重要性:肺癌患者偏好的案例研究。
Med Decis Making. 2024 Feb;44(2):203-216. doi: 10.1177/0272989X231222421. Epub 2024 Jan 4.

引用本文的文献

1
Preferences of Non-Metropolitan Youth Towards Accessing Mental Health Services: A Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis.非大都市地区青少年对获得心理健康服务的偏好:基于选择的联合分析
Aust J Rural Health. 2025 Apr;33(2):e70052. doi: 10.1111/ajr.70052.
2
An Overview of Data Collection in Health Preference Research.健康偏好研究中的数据收集概述
Patient. 2024 Apr 25. doi: 10.1007/s40271-024-00695-6.
3
Making Use of Technology to Improve Stated Preference Studies.利用技术改进陈述偏好研究。

本文引用的文献

1
A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies.一图胜千言:问卷调查培训材料在意愿调查研究中的作用。
Patient. 2020 Apr;13(2):163-173. doi: 10.1007/s40271-019-00391-w.
2
Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.健康经济学中的离散选择实验:文献综述
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Sep;32(9):883-902. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x.
Patient. 2024 Sep;17(5):483-491. doi: 10.1007/s40271-024-00693-8. Epub 2024 Apr 17.
4
Stated-Preference Survey Design and Testing in Health Applications.健康应用中的陈述偏好调查设计与测试
Patient. 2025 May;18(3):187-197. doi: 10.1007/s40271-023-00671-6. Epub 2024 Jan 31.
5
Did a bot eat your homework? An assessment of the potential impact of bad actors in online administration of preference surveys.难道是机器人把你的作业吃了?对不良行为者在线管理偏好调查的潜在影响评估。
PLoS One. 2023 Oct 5;18(10):e0287766. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287766. eCollection 2023.
6
Transforming challenges into opportunities: conducting health preference research during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.将挑战转化为机遇:在 COVID-19 大流行期间及以后开展健康偏好研究。
Qual Life Res. 2022 Apr;31(4):1191-1198. doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-03012-y. Epub 2021 Oct 18.
7
Preference Paths and Their Kaizen Tasks for Small Samples.小样本的偏好路径及其改善任务。
Patient. 2022 Mar;15(2):187-196. doi: 10.1007/s40271-021-00541-z. Epub 2021 Jul 30.