Measuring the Preferences of Homeless Women for Cervical Cancer Screening Interventions: Development of a Best-Worst Scaling Survey.
Measuring the Preferences of Homeless Women for Cervical Cancer Screening Interventions: Development of a Best-Worst Scaling Survey.
复制标题
衡量无家可归妇女对宫颈癌筛查干预措施的偏好：制定最佳-最差规模调查。
DOI：
10.1007/s40271-014-0110-z
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Weinreb,Linda
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wittenberg,Eve;Bharel,Monica;Saada,Adrianna;Santiago,Emely;Bridges,JohnFP;Weinreb,Linda
尽管有多种风险因素，但经历无家可归的妇女接受宫颈癌筛查的比率低于美国普通人群中的妇女。我们报告的设计一个声明的偏好研究，以评估无家可归的妇女的偏好宫颈癌筛查干预措施，通知努力克服这种disparity.MethodsWe进行重点小组与无家可归的妇女（n= 8）的宫颈癌筛查的决定，并分析了数据使用主题分析。我们应用纳入标准选择因素的声明偏好调查：重要性的妇女，相关供应商，可行性，并与临床经验的一致性。我们进行了预测试（n= 35），以评估调查程序（功能，招聘，管理）和内容（理解，理解，措辞/语言，长度）。ResultsWe选择了最好的最坏的缩放（BWS）-也被称为对象缩放，以确定决策相关的筛选干预因素。我们选择了一个有11个“对象”的实验设计（即，与妇女的筛查决定相关的因素）呈现在11个子集中，每个子集有5个对象。在最初确定的25个对象中，我们选择了11个用于BWS工具：提供者相关因素：态度，熟悉度和性别;设置相关因素：接受和成本;程序相关因素：访问期间的解释和访问的时间/方便性;个人恐惧和障碍：对卫生，成瘾和交付的担忧/对结果的恐惧;和一个一般的因素的感觉overwhelmed.ConclusionGood practices为发展所述的偏好调查包括考虑评估的实验设计，使用和偏好因素，包括，和预测试的演示格式。我们展示了无家可归的妇女的宫颈癌筛查干预偏好的BWS研究的发展。随后的研究将确定筛选优先事项，以告知干预设计。
ObjectiveDespite having multiple risk factors, women experiencing homelessness are screened for cervical cancer at a lower rate than women in the general US population. We report on the design of a stated preference study to assess homeless women’s preferences for cervical cancer screening interventions, to inform efforts to overcome this disparity.MethodsWe conducted focus groups with homeless women (n= 8) on cervical cancer screening decisions and analyzed the data using thematic analysis. We applied inclusion criteria to select factors for a stated preference survey: importance to women, relevance to providers, feasibility, and consistency with clinical experience. We conducted pretests (n= 35) to assess survey procedures (functionality, recruitment, administration) and content (understanding, comprehension, wording/language, length).ResultsWe chose best–worst scaling (BWS)—also known as object scaling—to identify decision-relevant screening intervention factors. We chose an experimental design with 11 “objects” (i.e., factors relevant to women’s screening decision) presented in 11 subsets of five objects each. Of 25 objects initially identified, we selected 11 for the BWS instrument: provider-related factors: attitude, familiarity, and gender; setting-related factors: acceptance and cost; procedure-related factors: explanation during visit and timing/convenience of visit; personal fears and barriers: concerns about hygiene, addiction, and delivery/fear of results; and a general factor of feeling overwhelmed.ConclusionGood practices for the development of stated preference surveys include considered assessment of the experimental design that is used and the preference factors that are included, and pretesting of the presentation format. We demonstrate the development of a BWS study of homeless women’s cervical cancer screening intervention preferences. Subsequent research will identify screening priorities to inform intervention design.