EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Incorporating Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) Questions into Focus Groups to Improve Understanding of Patient Preferences and Refine BWS Attributes

Deborah A. Marshall (), Karen V. MacDonald, Nitya Suryaprakash, Raza M. Mirza, Maida J. Sewitch and Geoffrey C. Nguyen
Additional contact information
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

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2025, vol. 18, issue 5, No 7, 493 pages

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-025-00736-8 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-025-00736-8

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-025-00736-8

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().

 
Page updated 2025-09-05
Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-025-00736-8