Christine Michaels-Igbokwe1, Gillian R Currie2,3,4,5, Bryanne L Kennedy1, Karen V MacDonald1, Deborah A Marshall1,6,7,8,9. 1. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada. 2. Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada. currie@ucalgary.ca. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. currie@ucalgary.ca. 4. Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. currie@ucalgary.ca. 5. O'Brien Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. currie@ucalgary.ca. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 7. Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 8. O'Brien Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 9. McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a common method used to describe and quantitatively assess preferences in health applications. Increasingly, DCEs have been used to elicit preferences from children and adolescents and generate evidence to inform policies affecting this population. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to summarize and describe the application of DCEs conducted with children and adolescents and describe author-reported age-specific considerations in design, implementation, and analysis. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using a 'pearl-growing' technique whereby the reference lists of existing systematic reviews of DCEs were used to identify potential studies conducted with children or adolescents as respondents published between 1990 and 2017. This list was supplemented with an updated electronic search using the same strategy as the initial reviews to identify studies from 2017 to 2020. RESULTS: Of 480 studies identified, 19 were included; topics included vaccines (32%), drugs/medical devices (26%), treatment or health promotion interventions/programs (21%), warning labels on cigarettes/nicotine products (10%), and preferences for physical activity and healthy food choices (10%). The youngest reported age for independent DCE completion was 8 years. Approaches to assessing validity and reliability of choices were consistent with best practices for the conduct of DCEs. Reported age-specific considerations included use of visual aids, age-appropriate language, reducing task complexity and cognitive burden, and exploration of interpretation of willingness-to-pay. CONCLUSION: The number of DCEs conducted with children and adolescents has increased in recent years. Detailed explanation of why reported age-specific considerations were necessary, how they could be used to interpret results, or to understand the appropriateness of this methodology for different age groups was limited. Despite a recognition of the need for special consideration when conducting DCEs in this population, the unique issues in the context of age-specific considerations are largely unexplored, and further research is required. Moving forward, stated preference research conducted with children and adolescents should report in more detail methods of recruitment, results of validity assessments, and provide specific reflection on the extent to which modeled results are consistent with expectations and underlying theory.
BACKGROUND: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a common method used to describe and quantitatively assess preferences in health applications. Increasingly, DCEs have been used to elicit preferences from children and adolescents and generate evidence to inform policies affecting this population. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to summarize and describe the application of DCEs conducted with children and adolescents and describe author-reported age-specific considerations in design, implementation, and analysis. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using a 'pearl-growing' technique whereby the reference lists of existing systematic reviews of DCEs were used to identify potential studies conducted with children or adolescents as respondents published between 1990 and 2017. This list was supplemented with an updated electronic search using the same strategy as the initial reviews to identify studies from 2017 to 2020. RESULTS: Of 480 studies identified, 19 were included; topics included vaccines (32%), drugs/medical devices (26%), treatment or health promotion interventions/programs (21%), warning labels on cigarettes/nicotine products (10%), and preferences for physical activity and healthy food choices (10%). The youngest reported age for independent DCE completion was 8 years. Approaches to assessing validity and reliability of choices were consistent with best practices for the conduct of DCEs. Reported age-specific considerations included use of visual aids, age-appropriate language, reducing task complexity and cognitive burden, and exploration of interpretation of willingness-to-pay. CONCLUSION: The number of DCEs conducted with children and adolescents has increased in recent years. Detailed explanation of why reported age-specific considerations were necessary, how they could be used to interpret results, or to understand the appropriateness of this methodology for different age groups was limited. Despite a recognition of the need for special consideration when conducting DCEs in this population, the unique issues in the context of age-specific considerations are largely unexplored, and further research is required. Moving forward, stated preference research conducted with children and adolescents should report in more detail methods of recruitment, results of validity assessments, and provide specific reflection on the extent to which modeled results are consistent with expectations and underlying theory.
Authors: Deborah Marshall; John F P Bridges; Brett Hauber; Ruthanne Cameron; Lauren Donnalley; Ken Fyie; F Reed Johnson Journal: Patient Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: A Brett Hauber; Juan Marcos González; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Thomas Prior; Deborah A Marshall; Charles Cunningham; Maarten J IJzerman; John F P Bridges Journal: Value Health Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Ellen M Janssen; Deborah A Marshall; A Brett Hauber; John F P Bridges Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Ralf W Schlosser; Oliver Wendt; Suresh Bhavnani; Barbara Nail-Chiwetalu Journal: Int J Lang Commun Disord Date: 2006 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Roberto Aringhieri; Patrick Hirsch; Marion S Rauner; Melanie Reuter-Oppermanns; Margit Sommersguter-Reichmann Journal: Cent Eur J Oper Res Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 2.345