| Title |
Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40258-015-0197-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Donna Rowen, John Brazier, Anju Keetharuth, Aki Tsuchiya, Clara Mukuria |
| Abstract |
Proposals for value-based assessment, made by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK, recommended that burden of illness (BOI) should be used to weight QALY gain. This paper explores some of the methodological issues in eliciting societal preferences for BOI. This study explores the impact of mode of administration and framing in a survey for eliciting societal preferences for BOI. A pairwise comparison survey with six arms was conducted online and via face-to-face interviews, involving two different wordings of questions and the inclusion/exclusion of pictures. Respondents were asked which of two patient groups they thought a publically funded health service should treat, where the groups varied by life expectancy without treatment, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) without treatment, survival gain from treatment, and HRQOL gain from treatment. Responses across different modes of administration, wording and use of pictures were compared using chi-squared tests and probit regression analysis controlling for respondent socio-demographic characteristics. The sample contained 371 respondents: 69 were interviewed and 302 completed the questionnaire online. There were some differences in socio-demographic characteristics across the online and interview samples. Online respondents were less likely to choose the group with higher BOI and more likely to treat those with a higher QALY gain, but there were no statistically significant differences by wording or the inclusion of pictures for the majority of questions. Regression analysis confirmed these results. Respondents chose to treat the group with larger treatment gain, but there was little support for treating the group with higher BOI. Respondents also preferred to treat the group with treatment gains in life expectancy rather than HRQOL. Mode of administration did impact on responses, whereas question wording and pictures did not impact on responses, even after controlling for the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in the regression analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 17 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 14% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 12% |
| Psychology | 4 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,230,777
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#445
of 791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,460
of 279,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#10
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.