Obstetrical outcome valuations by patients, professionals, and laypersons: differences within and between groups using three valuation methods.
Obstetrical outcome valuations by patients, professionals, and laypersons: differences within and between groups using three valuation methods.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2393-11-93
复制
发表时间：
2011-11-12
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Bonsel GJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bijlenga D;Birnie E;Mol BW;Bonsel GJ
决策可以基于患者、医生的治疗偏好，也可以基于非专业人士的偏好制定指导方针。我们比较了三个群体：患者、产科护理专业人员和非专业人员对母亲和(未出生的)孩子的健康状况的评估。我们的目的是使用不同的评估方法和复杂的产科健康结果小插曲来比较不同组的估值，这些小插曲同时涉及母亲和新生儿的结果。患者(n=24)、专业人员(n=30)和非专业人员(n=27)使用三种评估方法：视觉模拟标尺(VAS)、时间权衡(TTO)和离散选择实验(DCE)来评估小场景。每个小插曲涵盖五个健康属性：产妇产前健康、诊断和分娩之间的时间、分娩过程、产妇结局和新生儿结局。我们使用可行性问卷、概化理论、重测信度和组内信度来比较不同组和不同方法之间的评估模式。我们评估了每种评估方法的相对权重，以测试各组之间的一致性。重测信度跨组相同，但不同方法不同：VAS最高(ICC=0.61-0.73)，TTO居中(ICC=0.24-0.74)，DCE最低(kappa=0.15-0.37)。VAS组内信度最高(ICC=0.70~0.73)，DCE组居中(Kappa=0.56~0.76)，TTO组最低(ICC=0.20~0.66)。小组的影响小于方法的影响。在严重的健康状况下，不同群体之间的差异最大。根据我们的结果，外行人的决策应该使用TTO或DCE；患者应该使用VAS或TTO。
Decision-making can be based on treatment preferences of the patient, the doctor, or by guidelines based on lay people's preferences. We compared valuations assigned by three groups: patients, obstetrical care professionals, and laypersons, for health states involving both mother and (unborn) child. Our aim was to compare the valuations of different groups using different valuation methods and complex obstetric health outcome vignettes that involve both maternal and neonatal outcomes. Patients (n = 24), professionals (n = 30), and laypersons (n = 27) valued the vignettes using three valuation methods: visual analogue scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and discrete choice experimentation (DCE). Each vignette covered five health attributes: maternal health ante partum, time between diagnosis and delivery, process of delivery, maternal outcome, and neonatal outcome. We used feasibility questionnaires, Generalization theory, test-retest reliability and within-group reliability to compare the valuation patterns between groups and methods. We assessed relative weights from each valuation method to test for consistency across groups. Test-retest reliability was equal across groups, but different across methods: highest for VAS (ICC = 0.61-0.73), intermediate for TTO (ICC = 0.24-0.74) and lowest for DCE (kappa = 0.15-0.37). Within-group reliability was highest in all groups with VAS (ICC = 0.70-0.73), intermediate with DCE (kappa = 0.56-0.76) and lowest with TTO (ICC = 0.20-0.66). Effects of groups were smaller than effects of methods. Differences between groups were largest for severe health states. Based on our results, decision making among laypersons should use TTO or DCE; patients should use VAS or TTO.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
168.9
作者：
Koopmans, Corine M.;Bijlenga, Denise;van Pampus, Maria G.
通讯作者：
van Pampus, Maria G.
影响因子：
4.5
作者：
Brauer, Carmen A.;Rosen, Allison B.;Neumann, Peter J.
通讯作者：
Neumann, Peter J.
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
KANE, RL;BELL, RM;RIEGLER, SZ
通讯作者：
RIEGLER, SZ
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Ossa, Diego F.;Briggs, Andrew;Sculpher, Mark
通讯作者：
Sculpher, Mark
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Gudex, C;Dolan, P;Williams, A
通讯作者：
Williams, A