A Reporting Checklist for Discrete Choice Experiments in Health: The DIRECT Checklist.

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS PharmacoEconomics Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-03 DOI:10.1007/s40273-024-01431-6
Jemimah Ride, Ilias Goranitis, Yan Meng, Christine LaBond, Emily Lancsar
{"title":"A Reporting Checklist for Discrete Choice Experiments in Health: The DIRECT Checklist.","authors":"Jemimah Ride, Ilias Goranitis, Yan Meng, Christine LaBond, Emily Lancsar","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01431-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reporting standards of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) in health have not kept pace with the growth of this method, with multiple reviews calling for better reporting to improve transparency, assessment of validity and translation. A key missing piece has been the absence of a reporting checklist that details minimum standards of what should be reported, as exists for many other methods used in health economics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper reports the development of a reporting checklist for DCEs in health, which involved a scoping review to identify potential items and a Delphi consensus study among 45 DCE experts internationally to select items and guide the wording and structure of the checklist. The Delphi study included a best-worst scaling study for prioritisation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The final checklist is presented along with guidance on how to apply it. This checklist can be used by authors to ensure that sufficient detail of a DCE's methods are reported, providing reviewers and readers with the information they need to assess the quality of the study for themselves. Embedding this reporting checklist into standard practice for health DCEs offers an opportunity to improve consistency of reporting standards, thereby enabling transparency of review and facilitating comparison of studies and their translation into policy and practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11405421/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01431-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Reporting standards of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) in health have not kept pace with the growth of this method, with multiple reviews calling for better reporting to improve transparency, assessment of validity and translation. A key missing piece has been the absence of a reporting checklist that details minimum standards of what should be reported, as exists for many other methods used in health economics.

Methods: This paper reports the development of a reporting checklist for DCEs in health, which involved a scoping review to identify potential items and a Delphi consensus study among 45 DCE experts internationally to select items and guide the wording and structure of the checklist. The Delphi study included a best-worst scaling study for prioritisation.

Conclusions: The final checklist is presented along with guidance on how to apply it. This checklist can be used by authors to ensure that sufficient detail of a DCE's methods are reported, providing reviewers and readers with the information they need to assess the quality of the study for themselves. Embedding this reporting checklist into standard practice for health DCEs offers an opportunity to improve consistency of reporting standards, thereby enabling transparency of review and facilitating comparison of studies and their translation into policy and practice.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
健康离散选择实验报告核对表:DIRECT 核对表
背景:卫生领域离散选择实验(DCE)的报告标准没有跟上这种方法的发展步伐,多篇综述呼吁改善报告,以提高透明度、有效性评估和转化。与卫生经济学中使用的许多其他方法一样,缺少一个详细说明应报告内容最低标准的报告核对表是一个关键问题:本文报告了为卫生领域的 DCE 制定报告核对表的情况,其中包括为确定潜在项目而进行的范围审查,以及在国际 45 位 DCE 专家中进行的德尔菲共识研究,以选择项目并指导核对表的措辞和结构。德尔菲研究包括一项最佳-最差比例研究,以确定优先次序:结论:介绍了最终的核对表以及如何应用该核对表的指南。作者可使用该核对表确保报告 DCE 方法的足够细节,为审稿人和读者提供评估研究质量所需的信息。将该报告核对表纳入健康 DCE 的标准实践中,可提高报告标准的一致性,从而实现评审的透明化,促进研究比较并将其转化为政策和实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PharmacoEconomics
PharmacoEconomics 医学-药学
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics is the benchmark journal for peer-reviewed, authoritative and practical articles on the application of pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life assessment to optimum drug therapy and health outcomes. An invaluable source of applied pharmacoeconomic original research and educational material for the healthcare decision maker. PharmacoEconomics is dedicated to the clear communication of complex pharmacoeconomic issues related to patient care and drug utilization. PharmacoEconomics offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article.
期刊最新文献
Design and Features of Pricing and Payment Schemes for Health Technologies: A Scoping Review and a Proposal for a Flexible Need-Driven Classification. Economic Burden Associated with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in the United States. The Impact of Tocilizumab Coverage on Health Equity for Inpatients with COVID-19 in the USA: A Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Managed Entry Agreements for High-Cost, One-Off Potentially Curative Therapies: A Framework and Calculation Tool to Determine Their Suitability. How Much Better is Faster? Empirical Tests of QALY Assumptions in Health-Outcome Sequences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1