Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31840215›Full record

ArticleThe patient2020

Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers.

Ilene L Hollin, Benjamin M Craig, Joanna Coast, Kathleen Beusterien, Caroline Vass, Rachael DiSantostefano, Holly Peay

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

104 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Factors Influencing Physician Adherence to Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Model Recommendations: A Best-Worst Scaling.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ilene L HollinDepartment of Health Services Administration and Policy, College of Public Health, Temple University, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave., Room 537, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA. ilene.hollin@temple.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1405-8687
Benjamin M CraigDepartment of Economics College of Arts and Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Joanna CoastHealth Economics Bristol, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Kathleen BeusterienHealth Division, Kantar, New York, NY, USA.
Caroline VassHealth Preference Assessment Group, RTI Health Solutions, Didsbury, Manchester, UK.
Rachael DiSantostefanoDepartment of Epidemiology, Janssen R&D, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USA.
Holly PeayRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFormative qualitative research is foundational to the methodological development process of quantitative health preference research (HPR). Despite its ability to improve the validity of the quantitative evidence, formative qualitative research is underreported.

objectiveTo improve the frequency and quality of reporting, we developed guidelines for reporting this type of research. The guidelines focus on formative qualitative research used to develop robust and acceptable quantitative study protocols and corresponding survey instruments in HPR.

methodsIn December 2018, a steering committee was formed as a means to accumulate the expertise of the HPR community on the reporting guidelines (21 members, seven countries, multiple settings and disciplines). Using existing guidelines and examples, the committee constructed, revised, and refined the guidelines. The guidelines underwent beta testing by three researchers, and further revisions to the guidelines were made based on their feedback as well as on comments from members of the International Academy of Health Preference Research (IAHPR) and the editorial board of The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

resultsThe guidelines have five components: introductory material (4 domains), methods (12), results/findings (2), discussion (2), and other (2). They are concordant with existing guidelines, published examples, beta-testing results, and expert comments.

conclusionsPublishing formative qualitative research is a necessary step toward strengthening the foundation of any quantitative study, enhancing the relevance of its preference evidence. The guidelines should aid researchers, reviewers, and regulatory agencies and promote transparency within HPR more broadly.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceQualitative ResearchGuidelines as TopicHumansPatient ParticipationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID31840215

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.