4.2 Article

Making sense of patient priorities: applying discrete choice methods in primary care using 'think aloud' technique

期刊

FAMILY PRACTICE
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 276-282

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmm007

关键词

behavioural sciences; health economics; qualititative research; patient involvement; decision science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Delivering effective health care within limited budgets requires an understanding of patient priorities. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) provide patients with choices, where each choice differs in terms of certain attributes (such as waiting times, quality of care). Although this technique has significant potential in examining priorities, its use raises practical and conceptual issues. This paper describes the development of a DCE evaluating patient priorities in primary care. Methods. Twenty patients completed a DCE using a 'think aloud' protocol, where they verbalized their thinking while making choices. The analysis examined their decision-making processes. Results. There was evidence that patients reinterpreted some attributes, and related some to others outside the task. The cost attribute was interpreted in a variety of ways, dominating some patients' decision-making, being seen as irrelevant by others and being interpreted appropriately by some. The deree to which patients exhibited trading in line with theoretical assumptions also varied. Some choices in the hypothetical task were restricted by their previous experience, but more frequently patients tested the boundaries of the task in ways which directly reflected the primary care context. Conclusion. Patient interpretation of the discrete choice task was varied and some went beyond the formal boundaries of the task to make their choices. This highlights the importance of piloting attributes, providing clear instructions about the task and developing models of patient decision-making so that responses can be interpreted correctly.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据