Ilene L Hollin1, Benjamin M Craig2, Joanna Coast3, Kathleen Beusterien4, Caroline Vass5, Rachael DiSantostefano6, Holly Peay7. 1. Department of Health Services Administration and Policy, College of Public Health, Temple University, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave., Room 537, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA. ilene.hollin@temple.edu. 2. Department of Economics College of Arts and Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. 3. Health Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 4. Health Division, Kantar, New York, NY, USA. 5. Health Preference Assessment Group, RTI Health Solutions, Didsbury, Manchester, UK. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Janssen R&D, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USA. 7. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Formative qualitative research is foundational to the methodological development process of quantitative health preference research (HPR). Despite its ability to improve the validity of the quantitative evidence, formative qualitative research is underreported. OBJECTIVE: To improve the frequency and quality of reporting, we developed guidelines for reporting this type of research. The guidelines focus on formative qualitative research used to develop robust and acceptable quantitative study protocols and corresponding survey instruments in HPR. METHODS: In December 2018, a steering committee was formed as a means to accumulate the expertise of the HPR community on the reporting guidelines (21 members, seven countries, multiple settings and disciplines). Using existing guidelines and examples, the committee constructed, revised, and refined the guidelines. The guidelines underwent beta testing by three researchers, and further revisions to the guidelines were made based on their feedback as well as on comments from members of the International Academy of Health Preference Research (IAHPR) and the editorial board of The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. RESULTS: The guidelines have five components: introductory material (4 domains), methods (12), results/findings (2), discussion (2), and other (2). They are concordant with existing guidelines, published examples, beta-testing results, and expert comments. CONCLUSIONS: Publishing formative qualitative research is a necessary step toward strengthening the foundation of any quantitative study, enhancing the relevance of its preference evidence. The guidelines should aid researchers, reviewers, and regulatory agencies and promote transparency within HPR more broadly.
BACKGROUND: Formative qualitative research is foundational to the methodological development process of quantitative health preference research (HPR). Despite its ability to improve the validity of the quantitative evidence, formative qualitative research is underreported. OBJECTIVE: To improve the frequency and quality of reporting, we developed guidelines for reporting this type of research. The guidelines focus on formative qualitative research used to develop robust and acceptable quantitative study protocols and corresponding survey instruments in HPR. METHODS: In December 2018, a steering committee was formed as a means to accumulate the expertise of the HPR community on the reporting guidelines (21 members, seven countries, multiple settings and disciplines). Using existing guidelines and examples, the committee constructed, revised, and refined the guidelines. The guidelines underwent beta testing by three researchers, and further revisions to the guidelines were made based on their feedback as well as on comments from members of the International Academy of Health Preference Research (IAHPR) and the editorial board of The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. RESULTS: The guidelines have five components: introductory material (4 domains), methods (12), results/findings (2), discussion (2), and other (2). They are concordant with existing guidelines, published examples, beta-testing results, and expert comments. CONCLUSIONS: Publishing formative qualitative research is a necessary step toward strengthening the foundation of any quantitative study, enhancing the relevance of its preference evidence. The guidelines should aid researchers, reviewers, and regulatory agencies and promote transparency within HPR more broadly.
Authors: Inge W H van Empel; Eline A F Dancet; Xander H E Koolman; Willianne L D M Nelen; Elly A Stolk; Walter Sermeus; Thomas M D'Hooghe; Jan A M Kremer Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Joanna Coast; Hareth Al-Janabi; Eileen J Sutton; Susan A Horrocks; A Jane Vosper; Dawn R Swancutt; Terry N Flynn Journal: Health Econ Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Celeste Gilbert; Lisa Keay; Anna Palagyi; Vu Quang Do; Peter McCluskey; Andrew White; Nicole Carnt; Fiona Stapleton; Tracey-Lea Laba Journal: Clin Exp Optom Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 2.742
Authors: Kei Long Cheung; Ben F M Wijnen; Ilene L Hollin; Ellen M Janssen; John F Bridges; Silvia M A A Evers; Mickael Hiligsmann Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Laura Wagner; MaryKate Frisch; Lauren Turner-Brown; Sara Andrews; Anne Edwards; Rebecca Moultrie; Alexandra Alvarez Rivas; Anne Wheeler; Melissa Raspa Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 2.554
Authors: Edward J D Webb; David Meads; Ieva Eskytė; Helen L Ford; Hilary L Bekker; Jeremy Chataway; George Pepper; Joachim Marti; Yasmina Okan; Sue H Pavitt; Klaus Schmierer; Ana Manzano Journal: Patient Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Jennifer E Flythe; Derek Forfang; Nieltje Gedney; David M White; Caroline Wilkie; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Raymond C Harris; Mark Unruh; Grace Squillaci; Melissa West; Carol Mansfield; Cindy S Soloe; Katherine Treiman; Dallas Wood; Frank P Hurst; Carolyn Y Neuland; Anindita Saha; Murray Sheldon; Michelle E Tarver Journal: Kidney360 Date: 2022-05-05
Authors: Rosanne Janssens; Tamika Lang; Ana Vallejo; Jayne Galinsky; Ananda Plate; Kate Morgan; Elena Cabezudo; Raija Silvennoinen; Daniel Coriu; Sorina Badelita; Ruxandra Irimia; Minna Anttonen; Riikka-Leena Manninen; Elise Schoefs; Martina Vandebroek; Anneleen Vanhellemont; Michel Delforge; Hilde Stevens; Steven Simoens; Isabelle Huys Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2021-07-06