Making sense of patient priorities: Applying discrete choice methods in primary care using 'think aloud' technique

Family Practice

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 276-282

  Cheraghi Sohi, Sudeh ^a   Bower, Peter ^a   Mead, Nicola ^a   McDonald, Ruth ^a   Whalley, Diane ^a   Roland, Martin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Behavioural sciences; Decision science; Health economics; Patient involvement; Qualititative research

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; DECISION MAKING; EXPERIENCE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MALE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; RESEARCH; THINKING; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 34547907064     PISSN: 02632136     EISSN: 14602229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmm007     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond C, Ludbrook A. Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care 2001; 10 i55-i60.
2. Scott A, Vick S. Patients, doctors and contracts: An application of principal-agent theory to the doctor-patient relationship. Scott J Polit Econ 1999; 46:111-134.
3. Vick S, Scott A. Agency in health care. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship. J Health Econ 1998; 17: 587-605.
4. Morgan A, Shackley P, Pickin M, Brazier J. Quantifying patient preferences for out of hours primary care. J Health Serv Res Policy 2000; 5: 214-218.
5. Bower P, Roland M, Campbell J, Mead N. Setting standards based on patients' views on access and continuity: Secondary analysis of data from the general practice assessment survey. Br Med J 2003;326 258.
6. Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centredness: A conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Soc Sci Med 2000; 51: 1087-1110.
7. Haggerty J, Reid R, Freeman G, Starfield B, Adair C, McKendry R. Continuity of care: A multidisciplinary perspective. Br Med J 2003; 327: 1219-1221.
8. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: A case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ 2006; 15: 797-811.
9. Baker R, Robinson A. Responses to standard gambles: Are preferences 'well constructed'? Health Econ 2004; 13: 37-48.
10. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974; 185:1124-1131.
11. Cairns J, van der Pol M, Lloyd A. Decision making heuristics and the elicitation of preferences: Being fast and frugal about the future. Health Econ 2004; 11: 655-658.
12. Payne J, Bettman J, Schkade D. Measuring constructed preferences: towards a building code. J Risk Uncertain 1999; 19: 243-270.
13. Kenny P, Hall J, Viney R, Haas M. Do participants understand a stated preference health survey? A qualitative approach to assessing validity. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19: 664-681.
14. Orne M. On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. Am Psychol 1962; 17: 776-783.
15. Coast J. The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics. Health Econ 1999; 8: 345-353.
16. Ericsson K, Simon H. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984.
17. Boren M, Ramey J. Thinking aloud: Reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Trans Prof Commun. 2005; 43: 261-278.
18. Jung H, Baerveldt C, Olesen F, Grol R, Wensing M. Patient characteristics as predictors of primary health care preferences: A systematic literature analysis. Health Expect 2003; 6 160-181.
19. Cheraghi-Sohi S, Bower P, Mead N, McDonald R, Whalley D, Roland M. What are the key attributes of primary care for patients? Building a conceptual 'map' of patient preferences. Health Expect 2006; 9 275-284.
20. Ryan M, San Miguel F. Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care. Health Econ 2004; 12: 295-307.
21. Ryan M, Bate A. Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care. Appl Econ Lett 2001; 8: 59-63.
22. Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L. The veil of experience: Do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Econ, 2000; 9: 267-270.
23. San Miguel F, Ryan M, Amaya-Amaya M. 'Irrational' stated preferences: A quantitative and qualitative investigation. Health Econ 2005; 14: 307-322.
24. Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: A review of the literature. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2:
25. Green J. Commentary: Generalisability and validity in qualitative research. Br Med J 1999; 319: 421.
26. Phillips K, Johnson F, Maddala T. Measuring what people value: A comparison of 'attitude' and 'preference'surveys. Health Serv Res 2002; 37: 1659-1679.
27. Forgas J, Williams K, von Hippel W. Responding to the social world: explicit and implicit processes in social judgement. In Forgas J, Williams K, Hippel W (eds). Social Judgments: Implicit and Explicit Processes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006: 1-22.
28. Bruner J. Beyond the information given. In Angler J (ed.). Studies in the Psychology of Knowing, London: George Allen Unwin, 1957:218-238.
29. Murphy K, Jako R, Anhalt R. Nature and consequences of halo error: A critical analysis. J Appl Psychol 1993; 78: 218-225.
30. Williams B, Coyle J, Healy D. The meaning of patient satisfaction: An explanation of high reported levels. Soc Sci Med 1998; 47: 1351-1359.
31. Bryan S, Dolan P. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: For better or for worse? Eur J Health Econ 2004; 5: 199-202.
32. Mallinson S. Listening to respondents: A qualitative assessment of the Short Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire. Soc Sci Med 2002; 54 11-21.
33. Gerard K, Lattimer V. Preferences of patients for emergency services available during usual GP surgery hours: A discrete choice experiment. Fam Pract 2005; 22: 28-36.