Discrete choice experiment to determine preferences of decision-makers in healthcare for different formats of rapid reviews.
Conjoint analysis
Discrete choice experiment
Evidence synthesis
Preference
Rapid review
Journal
Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 04 2021
20 04 2021
Historique:
received:
09
10
2020
accepted:
22
03
2021
entrez:
21
4
2021
pubmed:
22
4
2021
medline:
6
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Time-saving formats of evidence syntheses have been developed to fulfill healthcare policymakers' demands for timely evidence-based information. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) with decision-makers and people involved in the preparation of evidence syntheses was undertaken to elicit preferences for methodological shortcuts in the conduct of abbreviated reviews. D-efficient scenarios, each containing 14 pairwise comparisons, were designed for the DCE: the development of an evidence synthesis in 20 working days (scenario 1) and 12 months (scenario 2), respectively. Six attributes (number of databases, number of reviewers during screening, publication period, number of reviewers during data extraction, full-text analysis, types of HTA domains) with 2 to 3 levels each were defined. These were presented to the target population in an online survey. The relative importance of the individual attributes was determined using logistic regression models. Scenario 1 was completed by 36 participants and scenario 2 by 26 participants. The linearity assumption was confirmed by the full model. In both scenarios, the linear difference model showed a preference for higher levels for "number of reviewers during data extraction", followed by "number of reviewers during screening" and "full-text analysis". Subgroup analyses showed that preferences were influenced by participation in the preparation of evidence syntheses. The surveyed persons expressed preferences for quality standards in the process of literature screening and data extraction.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Time-saving formats of evidence syntheses have been developed to fulfill healthcare policymakers' demands for timely evidence-based information. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) with decision-makers and people involved in the preparation of evidence syntheses was undertaken to elicit preferences for methodological shortcuts in the conduct of abbreviated reviews.
METHODS
D-efficient scenarios, each containing 14 pairwise comparisons, were designed for the DCE: the development of an evidence synthesis in 20 working days (scenario 1) and 12 months (scenario 2), respectively. Six attributes (number of databases, number of reviewers during screening, publication period, number of reviewers during data extraction, full-text analysis, types of HTA domains) with 2 to 3 levels each were defined. These were presented to the target population in an online survey. The relative importance of the individual attributes was determined using logistic regression models.
RESULTS
Scenario 1 was completed by 36 participants and scenario 2 by 26 participants. The linearity assumption was confirmed by the full model. In both scenarios, the linear difference model showed a preference for higher levels for "number of reviewers during data extraction", followed by "number of reviewers during screening" and "full-text analysis". Subgroup analyses showed that preferences were influenced by participation in the preparation of evidence syntheses.
CONCLUSION
The surveyed persons expressed preferences for quality standards in the process of literature screening and data extraction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33879246
doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01647-z
pii: 10.1186/s13643-021-01647-z
pmc: PMC8057003
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
121Références
Integr Med Res. 2020 Sep;9(3):100484
pubmed: 32837904
Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13
pubmed: 21669364
BMC Med. 2015 Sep 16;13:224
pubmed: 26377409
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Nov 25;14(1):83
pubmed: 27884208
Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 14;4:26
pubmed: 25874967
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Dec;68(12):1451-62.e3
pubmed: 26278023
Implement Sci. 2010 Jul 19;5:56
pubmed: 20642853
Res Synth Methods. 2017 Dec;8(4):475-484
pubmed: 28703492
ANZ J Surg. 2008 Nov;78(11):1037-40
pubmed: 18959712
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 8;11(12):e0165903
pubmed: 27930662
Gesundheitswesen. 2017 May;79(5):438-442
pubmed: 25985227
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Aug 14;17(1):121
pubmed: 28806999
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014 Jan;30(1):20-7
pubmed: 24451157
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Apr;96:23-34
pubmed: 29258906
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
BMJ. 2000 Jun 3;320(7248):1530-3
pubmed: 10834905
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Spring;24(2):133-9
pubmed: 18400114
Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 12;4:160
pubmed: 26563648
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 May;121:20-28
pubmed: 31972274