Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 4/2022

18.10.2021 | COVID-19 | Commentary Zur Zeit gratis

Transforming challenges into opportunities: conducting health preference research during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond

verfasst von: Manraj N. Kaur, Richard L. Skolasky, Philip A. Powell, Feng Xie, I-Chan Huang, Ayse Kuspinar, John L. O’Dwyer, Amy M. Cizik, Donna Rowen

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 4/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The disruptions to health research during the COVID-19 pandemic are being recognized globally, and there is a growing need for understanding the pandemic’s impact on the health and health preferences of patients, caregivers, and the general public. Ongoing and planned health preference research (HPR) has been affected due to problems associated with recruitment, data collection, and data interpretation. While there are no “one size fits all” solutions, this commentary summarizes the key challenges in HPR within the context of the pandemic and offers pragmatic solutions and directions for future research. We recommend recruitment of a diverse, typically under-represented population in HPR using online, quota-based crowdsourcing platforms, and community partnerships. We foresee emerging evidence on remote, and telephone-based HPR modes of administration, with further studies on the shifts in preferences related to health and healthcare services as a result of the pandemic. We believe that the recalibration of HPR, due to what one would hope is an impermanent change, will permanently change how we conduct HPR in the future.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Craig, B. M., Lancsar, E., Mühlbacher, A. C., Brown, D. S., & Ostermann, J. (2017). Health preference research: An overview. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 10(4), 507–510.CrossRef Craig, B. M., Lancsar, E., Mühlbacher, A. C., Brown, D. S., & Ostermann, J. (2017). Health preference research: An overview. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 10(4), 507–510.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Clancy, C. M., & Eisenberg, J. M. (1998). Outcomes research: Measuring the end results of health care. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 282(5387), 245–246.CrossRef Clancy, C. M., & Eisenberg, J. M. (1998). Outcomes research: Measuring the end results of health care. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 282(5387), 245–246.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Patel, S. S., Webster, R. K., Greenberg, N., Weston, D., & Brooks, S. K. (2020). Research fatigue in COVID-19 pandemic and post-disaster research: Causes, consequences and recommendations. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 29(4), 445–455.CrossRef Patel, S. S., Webster, R. K., Greenberg, N., Weston, D., & Brooks, S. K. (2020). Research fatigue in COVID-19 pandemic and post-disaster research: Causes, consequences and recommendations. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 29(4), 445–455.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Sullivan, T., Hansen, P., Ombler, F., Derrett, S., & Devlin, N. (2020). A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing ‘dead.’ Social Science & Medicine, 246, 112707.CrossRef Sullivan, T., Hansen, P., Ombler, F., Derrett, S., & Devlin, N. (2020). A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing ‘dead.’ Social Science & Medicine, 246, 112707.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Norman, R., King, M. T., Clarke, D., Viney, R., Cronin, P., & Street, D. (2010). Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 499–508.CrossRef Norman, R., King, M. T., Clarke, D., Viney, R., Cronin, P., & Street, D. (2010). Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 499–508.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rowen, D., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Pickard, A. S., Street, D. J., Viney, R., Revicki, D., King, M. T., & European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group and the MAUCa Consortium. (2019). UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Economics, 28(12), 1385–1401.CrossRef Norman, R., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rowen, D., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Pickard, A. S., Street, D. J., Viney, R., Revicki, D., King, M. T., & European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group and the MAUCa Consortium. (2019). UK utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Economics, 28(12), 1385–1401.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Keetharuth, A., Tsuchiya, A., & Mukuria, C. (2016). Comparison of modes of administration and alternative formats for eliciting societal preferences for burden of illness. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 14(1), 89–104.CrossRef Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Keetharuth, A., Tsuchiya, A., & Mukuria, C. (2016). Comparison of modes of administration and alternative formats for eliciting societal preferences for burden of illness. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 14(1), 89–104.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Mulhern, B., Longworth, L., Brazier, J., Rowen, D., Bansback, N., Devlin, N., & Tsuchiya, A. (2013). Binary choice health state valuation and mode of administration: Head-to-head comparison of online and CAPI. Value in Health, 16(1), 104–113.CrossRef Mulhern, B., Longworth, L., Brazier, J., Rowen, D., Bansback, N., Devlin, N., & Tsuchiya, A. (2013). Binary choice health state valuation and mode of administration: Head-to-head comparison of online and CAPI. Value in Health, 16(1), 104–113.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Angeliki, N. M., Olsen, S. B., & Tsagarakis, K. P. (2016). Towards a common standard–a reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys. Journal of Choice Modelling, 18, 18–50.CrossRef Angeliki, N. M., Olsen, S. B., & Tsagarakis, K. P. (2016). Towards a common standard–a reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys. Journal of Choice Modelling, 18, 18–50.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., Lenderking, W. R., Cella, D., Basch, E., & ISPOR ePRO Task Force. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 419–429.CrossRef Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., Lenderking, W. R., Cella, D., Basch, E., & ISPOR ePRO Task Force. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 419–429.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Hay, J. W., Gong, C. L., Jiao, X., Zawadzki, N. K., Zawadzki, R. S., Pickard, A. S., Xie, F., Crawford, S. A., & Gu, N. Y. (2021). A US population health survey on the impact of COVID-19 using the EQ-5D-5L. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 36(5), 1292–1301.CrossRef Hay, J. W., Gong, C. L., Jiao, X., Zawadzki, N. K., Zawadzki, R. S., Pickard, A. S., Xie, F., Crawford, S. A., & Gu, N. Y. (2021). A US population health survey on the impact of COVID-19 using the EQ-5D-5L. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 36(5), 1292–1301.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.CrossRef Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2018). Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5 D-5 L value set for England. Health Economics, 27(1), 7–22.CrossRef Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2018). Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5 D-5 L value set for England. Health Economics, 27(1), 7–22.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108.CrossRef Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Young, T., Gaugris, S., Craig, B. M., King, M. T., & Velikova, G. (2011). Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value in Health, 14(5), 721–731.CrossRef Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Young, T., Gaugris, S., Craig, B. M., King, M. T., & Velikova, G. (2011). Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value in Health, 14(5), 721–731.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Mermet-Bouvier, P., & Whalen, M. D. (2020). Vulnerability and clinical research: Mapping the challenges for stakeholders. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 54(5), 1037–1046.CrossRef Mermet-Bouvier, P., & Whalen, M. D. (2020). Vulnerability and clinical research: Mapping the challenges for stakeholders. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 54(5), 1037–1046.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Patrick, K., Flegel, K., & Stanbrook, M. B. (2018). Vulnerable populations: An area CMAJ will continue to champion. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 190(11), E307.CrossRef Patrick, K., Flegel, K., & Stanbrook, M. B. (2018). Vulnerable populations: An area CMAJ will continue to champion. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 190(11), E307.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Chokkara, S., Volerman, A., Ramesh, S., & Laiteerapong, N. (2021). Examining the inclusivity of US trials of COVID-19 treatment. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 36(5), 1443–1445.CrossRef Chokkara, S., Volerman, A., Ramesh, S., & Laiteerapong, N. (2021). Examining the inclusivity of US trials of COVID-19 treatment. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 36(5), 1443–1445.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Young, L., Barnason, S., & Do, V. (2015). Review strategies to recruit and retain rural patient participating self-management behavioral trials. Online Journal of Rural Research and Policy, 10(2), 1.CrossRef Young, L., Barnason, S., & Do, V. (2015). Review strategies to recruit and retain rural patient participating self-management behavioral trials. Online Journal of Rural Research and Policy, 10(2), 1.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(3), 498–507.CrossRef Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70(3), 498–507.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economics, 5(2), 141–154.CrossRef Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Economics, 5(2), 141–154.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Sayah, F. A., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., Poissant, L., Pullenayegum, E., Xie, F., & Johnson, J. A. (2016). Determinants of time trade-off valuations for EQ-5D-5L health states: Data from the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study. Quality of Life Research, 25(7), 1679–1685.CrossRef Sayah, F. A., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., Poissant, L., Pullenayegum, E., Xie, F., & Johnson, J. A. (2016). Determinants of time trade-off valuations for EQ-5D-5L health states: Data from the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study. Quality of Life Research, 25(7), 1679–1685.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17(4), 445–453.CrossRef Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17(4), 445–453.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Mulhern, B. J., Bansback, N., Norman, R., Brazier, J., & SF-6Dv2 International Project Group. (2020). Valuing the SF-6Dv2 classification system in the United Kingdom using a discrete-choice experiment with duration. Medical Care, 58(6), 566–573.CrossRef Mulhern, B. J., Bansback, N., Norman, R., Brazier, J., & SF-6Dv2 International Project Group. (2020). Valuing the SF-6Dv2 classification system in the United Kingdom using a discrete-choice experiment with duration. Medical Care, 58(6), 566–573.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Jiang, R., Kohlmann, T., Lee, T. A., Mühlbacher, A., Shaw, J., Walton, S., & Pickard, A. S. (2020). Increasing respondent engagement in composite time trade-off tasks by imposing three minimum trade-offs to improve data quality. The European Journal of Health Economics, 22, 1–17. Jiang, R., Kohlmann, T., Lee, T. A., Mühlbacher, A., Shaw, J., Walton, S., & Pickard, A. S. (2020). Increasing respondent engagement in composite time trade-off tasks by imposing three minimum trade-offs to improve data quality. The European Journal of Health Economics, 22, 1–17.
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhuo, L., Xu, L., Ye, J., Sun, S., Zhang, Y., Burstrom, K., & Chen, J. (2018). Time trade-off value set for EQ-5D-3L based on a nationally representative Chinese population survey. Value in Health, 21(11), 1330–1337.CrossRef Zhuo, L., Xu, L., Ye, J., Sun, S., Zhang, Y., Burstrom, K., & Chen, J. (2018). Time trade-off value set for EQ-5D-3L based on a nationally representative Chinese population survey. Value in Health, 21(11), 1330–1337.CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Ratcliffe, J., Flynn, T., Terlich, F., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., & Sawyer, M. (2012). Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation. PharmacoEconomics, 30(8), 713–727.CrossRef Ratcliffe, J., Flynn, T., Terlich, F., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., & Sawyer, M. (2012). Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation. PharmacoEconomics, 30(8), 713–727.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Rogers, H. J., Marshman, Z., Rodd, H., & Rowen, D. (2021). Discrete choice experiments or best-worst scaling? A qualitative study to determine the suitability of preference elicitation tasks in research with children and young people. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 5(1), 1–11.CrossRef Rogers, H. J., Marshman, Z., Rodd, H., & Rowen, D. (2021). Discrete choice experiments or best-worst scaling? A qualitative study to determine the suitability of preference elicitation tasks in research with children and young people. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 5(1), 1–11.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Mulhern, B. J., Pantiri, K., & van Hout, B. (2019). A new method for valuing health: Directly eliciting personal utility functions. The European Journal of Health Economics, 20(2), 257–270.CrossRef Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Mulhern, B. J., Pantiri, K., & van Hout, B. (2019). A new method for valuing health: Directly eliciting personal utility functions. The European Journal of Health Economics, 20(2), 257–270.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Lipman, S. A. (2020). Time for tele-TTO? Lessons learned from digital interviewer-assisted time trade-off data collection. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 14, 1–11. Lipman, S. A. (2020). Time for tele-TTO? Lessons learned from digital interviewer-assisted time trade-off data collection. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 14, 1–11.
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Hewson, C., & Stewart, D. W. (2014). Internet research methods. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics reference online (pp. 1–6). Wiley. Hewson, C., & Stewart, D. W. (2014). Internet research methods. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics reference online (pp. 1–6). Wiley.
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Pozzar, R., Hammer, M. J., Underhill-Blazey, M., Wright, A. A., Tulsky, J. A., Hong, F., Gundersen, D. A., & Berry, D. L. (2020). Threats of bots and other bad actors to data quality following research participant recruitment through social media: Cross-sectional questionnaire. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(10), e23021.CrossRef Pozzar, R., Hammer, M. J., Underhill-Blazey, M., Wright, A. A., Tulsky, J. A., Hong, F., Gundersen, D. A., & Berry, D. L. (2020). Threats of bots and other bad actors to data quality following research participant recruitment through social media: Cross-sectional questionnaire. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(10), e23021.CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Storozuk, A., Ashley, M., Delage, V., & Maloney, E. A. (2020). Got bots? Practical recommendations to protect online survey data from bot attacks. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16(5), 472–481.CrossRef Storozuk, A., Ashley, M., Delage, V., & Maloney, E. A. (2020). Got bots? Practical recommendations to protect online survey data from bot attacks. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16(5), 472–481.CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Teitcher, J. E., Bockting, W. O., Bauermeister, J. A., Hoefer, C. J., Miner, M. H., & Klitzman, R. L. (2015). Detecting, preventing, and responding to “fraudsters” in internet research: Ethics and tradeoffs. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 43(1), 116–133.CrossRef Teitcher, J. E., Bockting, W. O., Bauermeister, J. A., Hoefer, C. J., Miner, M. H., & Klitzman, R. L. (2015). Detecting, preventing, and responding to “fraudsters” in internet research: Ethics and tradeoffs. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 43(1), 116–133.CrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Vass, C. M., & Boeri, M. (2021). Mobilising the next generation of stated-preference studies: The association of access device with choice behaviour and data quality. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 14(1), 55–63.CrossRef Vass, C. M., & Boeri, M. (2021). Mobilising the next generation of stated-preference studies: The association of access device with choice behaviour and data quality. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 14(1), 55–63.CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Lenert, L. A., Sturley, A., & Rupnow, M. (2003). Toward improved methods for measurement of utility: Automated repair of errors in elicitations. Medical Decision Making, 23(1), 67–75.CrossRef Lenert, L. A., Sturley, A., & Rupnow, M. (2003). Toward improved methods for measurement of utility: Automated repair of errors in elicitations. Medical Decision Making, 23(1), 67–75.CrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Abbey, J. D., & Meloy, M. G. (2017). Attention by design: Using attention checks to detect inattentive respondents and improve data quality. Journal of Operations Management, 53, 63–70.CrossRef Abbey, J. D., & Meloy, M. G. (2017). Attention by design: Using attention checks to detect inattentive respondents and improve data quality. Journal of Operations Management, 53, 63–70.CrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Wise, T., Zbozinek, T. D., Michelini, G., Hagan, C. C., & Mobbs, D. (2020). Changes in risk perception and self-reported protective behaviour during the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Royal Society open science, 7(9), 200742.CrossRef Wise, T., Zbozinek, T. D., Michelini, G., Hagan, C. C., & Mobbs, D. (2020). Changes in risk perception and self-reported protective behaviour during the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Royal Society open science, 7(9), 200742.CrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Mazza, C., Ricci, E., Biondi, S., Colasanti, M., Ferracuti, S., Napoli, C., & Roma, P. (2020). A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Italian people during the COVID-19 pandemic: Immediate psychological responses and associated factors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), 3165.CrossRef Mazza, C., Ricci, E., Biondi, S., Colasanti, M., Ferracuti, S., Napoli, C., & Roma, P. (2020). A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Italian people during the COVID-19 pandemic: Immediate psychological responses and associated factors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), 3165.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Transforming challenges into opportunities: conducting health preference research during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond
verfasst von
Manraj N. Kaur
Richard L. Skolasky
Philip A. Powell
Feng Xie
I-Chan Huang
Ayse Kuspinar
John L. O’Dwyer
Amy M. Cizik
Donna Rowen
Publikationsdatum
18.10.2021
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Schlagwort
COVID-19
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 4/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-03012-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2022

Quality of Life Research 4/2022 Zur Ausgabe