What Matters for Evaluating the Quality of Mental Healthcare? Identifying Important Aspects in Qualitative Focus Groups with Service Users and Frontline Mental Health Professionals

Attribute Development in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Methods and Techniques to Inform Quantitative Instruments

OBJECTIVES

This review sought to identify the qualitative methods and techniques that researchers have used in the past decade to develop attributes and inform health-related discrete choice experiments (DCEs) surveys from a patient perspective.

METHODS

The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for reporting systematic reviews. An adapted appraisal tool following guidelines for reporting qualitative research for quantitative instruments and criteria for attribute development in DCEs was applied for quality assessment and data extraction. A narrative approach was used to synthesize data. This examination included consideration of issues pertaining to sampling, data collection, data analysis, attribute list reduction, wording, methodological adaptations to capture patient preferences, and testing the pre-experimental design decisions of the DCE survey.

RESULTS

Of 8505 articles identified for abstract screening, 680 were included for full-text screening, 36 of which met the inclusion criteria. Practices to improve methodological robustness included pre-data collection materials to inform instruments, data collection methods specific for decision-making scenarios, purposeful selection of data analysis methods to address the research question, and participants' involvement in reducing the list of attributes. Examples of methodological adaptations for patients were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

DCEs have the potential to become a mixed-method approach in which the qualitative phase informs a reduced list of attributes for a survey, serves the predesign decisions of the experiment by testing trade-offs, overlapping, understandability, face, and content validity and provides explanations of the quantitative results. Establishing guidelines for using qualitative methods for DCE attribute development may help to broadly enhance the methodological robustness of DCEs.

Measuring the overall performance of mental healthcare providers

To date there have been no attempts to construct composite measures of healthcare provider performance which reflect preferences for health and non-health benefits, as well as costs. Health and non-health benefits matter to patients, healthcare providers and the general public. We develop a novel provider performance measurement framework that combines health gain, non-health benefit, and cost and illustrate it with an application to 54 English mental health providers. We apply estimates from a discrete choice experiment eliciting the UK general population's valuation of non-health benefits relative to health gains, to administrative and patient survey data for years 2013-2015 to calculate equivalent health benefit (eHB) for providers. We measure costs as forgone health and quantify the relative performance of providers in terms of equivalent net health benefit (eNHB): the value of the health and non-health benefits minus the forgone benefit equivalent of cost. We compare rankings of providers by eHB, eNHB, and by the rankings produced by the hospital sector regulator. We find that taking account of the non-health benefits in the eNHB measure makes a substantial difference to the evaluation of provider performance. Our study demonstrates that the provider performance evaluation space can be extended beyond measures of health gain and cost, and that this matters for comparison of providers.

Role Preferences in Medical Decision Making: Relevance and Implications for Health Preference Research

Health preference research (HPR) is being increasingly conducted to better understand patient preferences for medical decisions. However, patients vary in their desire to play an active role in medical decisions. Until now, few studies have considered patients' preferred roles in decision making. In this opinion paper, we advocate for HPR researchers to assess and account for role preferences in their studies, to increase the relevance of their work for medical and shared decision making. We provide recommendations on how role preferences can be elicited and integrated with health preferences: (1) in formative research prior to a health preference study that aims to inform medical decisions or decision makers, (2a) in the development of health preference instruments, for instance by incorporating a role preference instrument and (2b) by clarifying the respondent's role in the decision prior to the preference elicitation task or by including role preferences as an attribute in the task itself, and (3) in statistical analysis by including random parameters or latent classes to raise awareness of heterogeneity in role preferences and how it relates to health preferences. Finally, we suggest redefining the decision process as a model that integrates the role and health preferences of the different parties that are involved. We believe that the field of HPR would benefit from learning more about the extent to which role preferences relate to health preferences, within the context of medical and shared decision making.