Stakeholder Engagement in Designing Attributes for a Discrete Choice Experiment With Policy Implications: An Example of 2 Swiss Studies on Healthcare Delivery

Engaging primary care professionals in OECD's international PaRIS survey: a documentary analysis

Healthcare professionals have first-hand experience with patients in clinical practice and the dynamics in the healthcare system, which can be of great value in the design, implementation, data analysis and dissemination of research study results. Primary care professionals are particularly important as they provide first contact, accessible, coordinated, comprehensive and continuous people-focused care. However, in-depth examination of the engagement of health professionals in health system research and planning activities-how professionals are engaged and how this varies across national contexts- is limited, particularly in international initiatives. There is a need to identify gaps in the planning of engagement activities to inform the design and successful implementation of future international efforts to improve the responsiveness of health systems to the changing needs of patients and professionals. The aim of this study was to explore how primary care professionals were engaged in the design and implementation plans of an international health policy study led by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD's international PaRIS survey measures and disseminates information on patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) of people living with chronic conditions who are managed in primary care. A documentary analysis of 17 written national implementation plans (country roadmaps) was conducted between January and June 2023. Two reviewers independently performed the screening and data abstraction and resolved disagreements by discussion. We reported the intended target primary care professionals, phase of the study, channel of engagement, level of engagement, and purpose of engagement. All 17 countries aimed to engage primary care professionals in the execution plans for the international PaRIS survey. While organisations of primary care professionals, particularly of family doctors, were the most commonly targeted group, variation was found in the timing of engagement activities during the different phases of the study and in the level of engagement, ranging from co-development (half of the countries co-developed the survey together with primary care professionals) to one-off consultations with whom. International guidance facilitated the participation of primary care professionals. Continuous collaborative efforts at the international and national levels can foster a culture of engagement with primary care organisations and individual professionals and enhance meaningful engagement of primary care professionals.

Pretesting Discrete-Choice Experiments: A Guide for Researchers

Discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are a frequently used method to explore the preferences of patients and other decision-makers in health. Pretesting is an essential stage in the design of a high-quality choice experiment and involves engaging with representatives of the target population to improve the readability, presentation, and structure of the preference instrument. The goal of pretesting in DCEs is to improve the validity, reliability, and relevance of the survey, while decreasing sources of bias, burden, and error associated with preference elicitation, data collection, and interpretation of the data. Despite its value to inform DCE design, pretesting lacks documented good practices or clearly reported applied examples. The purpose of this paper is: (1) to define pretesting and describe the pretesting process specifically in the context of a DCE, (2) to present a practical guide and pretesting interview discussion template for researchers looking to conduct a rigorous pretest of a DCE, and (3) to provide an illustrative example of how these resources were operationalized to inform the design of a complex DCE aimed at eliciting tradeoffs between personal privacy and societal benefit in the context of a police method known as investigative genetic genealogy (IGG).

DCE attribute development investigating public policy for the provision of medicinal cannabis

BACKGROUND

Defining attributes and attribute levels for a discrete choice experiment (DCE) poses a significant challenge for practitioners exploring preferences for new or unfamiliar products due to the dearth of available information and limits in stakeholder knowledge. This study outlines a comprehensive process for identifying attributes and levels in a DCE aimed at gauging public preferences for health policies related to medicinal cannabis (MC).

METHODS

A rigorous four-stage attribute development process was utilized and included i) the formulation of a preliminary attribute list from a scoping review and document analysis, ii) reduction of attributes via focus groups, iii) removal of inappropriate attributes using Delphi studies and research team knowledge, and iv) refinement of attribute language based on the feedback from think-aloud interviews.

RESULTS

A base attribute list formed from the scoping review and document analysis served as effective discussion stimuli in focus groups, especially for participants with limited subject knowledge. Structured focus group activities proved more effective than open-ended discussions in engaging naive participants. Delphi studies were found to be overcomplex for expert-led attribute prioritization. Think-aloud interviews during a pilot DCE were essential for assessing attribute language and clarity and understanding participants' decision-making processes.

CONCLUSION

The development of DCE attributes measuring preferences for an unfamiliar health product requires a multi-method approach. Evaluating the outcomes from various methods of attribute development yielded a refined list of attributes that were significant to stakeholders, allowed for meaningful trade-offs, and were presented in language accessible to the target population.

Assessing healthcare capacity crisis preparedness: development of an evaluation tool by a Canadian health authority

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic presented health systems across the globe with unparalleled socio-political, ethical, scientific, and economic challenges. Despite the necessity for a unified, innovative, and effective response, many jurisdictions were unprepared to such a profound health crisis. This study aims to outline the creation of an evaluative tool designed to measure and evaluate the Vitalité Health Network's (New Brunswick, Canada) ability to manage health crises.

Methods

The methodology of this work was carried out in four stages: (1) construction of an evaluative framework; (2) validation of the framework; (3) construction of the evaluative tool for the Health Authority; and (4) evaluation of the capacity to manage a health crisis.

Results

The resulting evaluative tool incorporated 8 dimensions, 74 strategies, and 109 observable elements. The dimensions included: (1) clinical care management; (2) infection prevention and control; (3) governance and leadership; (4) human and logistic resources; (5) communication and technologies; (6) health research; (7) ethics and values; and (8) training. A Canadian Health Authority implemented the tool to support its future preparedness.

Conclusion

This study introduces a methodological strategy adopted by a Canadian health authority to evaluate its capacity in managing health crises. Notably, this study marks the first instance where a Canadian health authority has created a tool for emergency healthcare management, informed by literature in the field and their direct experience from handling the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.