Author
Listed:
- Deborah A. Marshall
(University of Calgary, Room 3C58 Health Research Innovation Centre (HRIC))
- Karen V. MacDonald
(University of Calgary, Room 3C58 Health Research Innovation Centre (HRIC))
- Nitya Suryaprakash
(University of Calgary, Room 3C58 Health Research Innovation Centre (HRIC))
- Raza M. Mirza
(University of Toronto)
- Maida J. Sewitch
(Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre)
- Geoffrey C. Nguyen
(University of Toronto)
Abstract
Background and Objective Best-worst scaling (BWS) is a stated preference elicitation method used for prioritizing attributes of healthcare interventions. Best-worst scaling attribute development is commonly based on literature review, qualitative work, and methodological/clinical expert input. There is limited research incorporating BWS in focus groups as part of the attribute development process. We sought to explore how incorporating BWS questions using the list of potential attributes in focus groups could be used to improve understanding of patient preferences and refine the list of potential BWS attributes as part of the attribute development process. Methods We administered BWS questions on healthcare priorities for inflammatory bowel disease in five focus groups with Canadian patients with inflammatory bowel disease to (1) understand the “what,” “how,” and “why” of participant choices and (2) note how participants understand the attributes and the language they use to refine the list of potential BWS attributes. A list of 20 potential attributes was used to generate the BWS questions. We coded most/least important choices (“what”) and used a thematic analysis to derive subthemes indicating “how” and “why” participants made their choices. We coded how participants understood the attributes/BWS questions and language used when discussing the attributes. Results Across the 36 participants, the most frequently chosen most/least important attributes were summarized. Three subthemes explaining the “how” and “why” of participant choices were identified: perceived gain; influence of individual experiences; current health state and personal circumstances. Participants identified challenges understanding specific attributes and BWS questions, and provided suggestions for modifications to attribute language/descriptions. Administering BWS questions in focus groups provided: (1) insight into the assumptions participants made when completing the BWS questions; (2) clarity in language and attribute descriptions, and challenges participants had when completing the BWS questions that can be used to refine the list of potential attributes as part of the attribute development process; and (3) understanding of which attributes were most/least important and why to identify potential attributes to remove during the next steps of the attribute development process. Conclusions Best-worst scaling questions conducted within focus groups can stimulate discussions around relative importance and prioritization of attributes. Through open dialogue, this method can unveil unforeseen responses or identify areas that are unclear and enable a transparent approach to refine the list of potential attributes as part of the attribute development process.
Suggested Citation
Deborah A. Marshall & Karen V. MacDonald & Nitya Suryaprakash & Raza M. Mirza & Maida J. Sewitch & Geoffrey C. Nguyen, 2025.
"Incorporating Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) Questions into Focus Groups to Improve Understanding of Patient Preferences and Refine BWS Attributes,"
The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 18(5), pages 481-493, September.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-025-00736-8
DOI: 10.1007/s40271-025-00736-8
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-025-00736-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.