Suppr超能文献

在线访谈与面对面访谈评估健康状态的随机比较

Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states.

机构信息

Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy | Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia.

Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy | Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia.

出版信息

Soc Sci Med. 2023 Apr;323:115818. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115818. Epub 2023 Mar 8.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Health state valuation studies using composite time trade-off (cTTO) interviews have historically been conducted face-to-face. The COVID-19 pandemic forced disruptive innovation meaning a number of valuation studies conducted interviews via videoconference. These studies found online interviews feasible and acceptable; however, studies were not constructed to test the impact of online versus face-to-face interviews. This study builds on its sister study from the UK and aims to assess the acceptability and equivalence of in person face-to-face interviews with online interviews on cTTO valuation outcomes and on data quality.

METHODS

Participants were recruited into a randomised equivalence study via an external research company. Consenting participants were randomly allocated to complete a cTTO interview face-to-face or online, using the same 10 EQ-5D-5L health states. Mean and distribution of the cTTO values, participant understanding, data quality, demographic characteristics, participant preference, participant engagement and participant feedback were all compared across interview mode. Statistical equivalence for cTTO values for each state was tested using two one-sided t-tests by mode. Finally, regression analysis was completed to assess the impacts of interview mode on cTTO value while controlling for demographic characteristics of the participants.

RESULTS

Mean cTTO values were shown to be equivalent for mild health states and showed no significant difference for serious health states. The proportion of individuals who expressed an interest in the study but declined to arrange an interview after finding out their randomisation was significantly higher for the face-to-face (21.6%) than the online group (1.8%). No significant difference was found between groups for participant engagement, understanding or feedback nor for any indicators of data quality.

CONCLUSION

Administrating interviews face to face or online did not appear to have a statistically significant impact on mean cTTO values. Offering both online and face-to-face interviews routinely allows all participants to select the most convenient option.

摘要

简介

使用复合时间权衡(cTTO)访谈进行健康状态评估的研究历来都是面对面进行的。COVID-19 大流行迫使人们进行颠覆性创新,这意味着许多评估研究都是通过视频会议进行访谈的。这些研究发现在线访谈是可行且可接受的;然而,这些研究并没有构建来测试在线访谈与面对面访谈的影响。本研究建立在其英国姊妹研究的基础上,旨在评估面对面访谈和在线访谈在 cTTO 评估结果和数据质量方面的可接受性和等效性。

方法

通过外部研究公司,参与者被招募到一项随机等效研究中。同意参与的参与者被随机分配完成面对面或在线的 cTTO 访谈,使用相同的 10 个 EQ-5D-5L 健康状态。通过访谈模式比较 cTTO 值的均值和分布、参与者的理解、数据质量、人口统计学特征、参与者偏好、参与者参与度和参与者反馈。通过模式的双单侧 t 检验对每个状态的 cTTO 值进行统计学等效性测试。最后,完成回归分析,以评估在控制参与者人口统计学特征的情况下,访谈模式对 cTTO 值的影响。

结果

对于轻度健康状态,平均 cTTO 值被证明是等效的,对于严重健康状态,没有显著差异。在发现随机分组后,表示对研究感兴趣但拒绝安排访谈的个体比例,面对面组(21.6%)显著高于在线组(1.8%)。在参与者参与度、理解或反馈方面,或在任何数据质量指标方面,两组之间没有发现显著差异。

结论

面对面或在线进行访谈似乎对平均 cTTO 值没有统计学上的显著影响。常规提供在线和面对面访谈,使所有参与者都可以选择最方便的选项。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8d5a/9993735/1137621a2c71/gr1_lrg.jpg

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