ArticleThe patient2023
Physical Activity Preferences of People Living with Brain Injury: Formative Qualitative Research to Develop a Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in The patient, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Physical Activity Clinical Practice Guideline for People With Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
- Pretesting Discrete-Choice Experiments: A Guide for Researchers.The patient · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe World Health Organization physical activity guidelines for people living with disability do not consider the needs of people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. This paper describes the qualitative co-development of a discrete choice experiment survey to inform the adaption of these guidelines by identifying the physical activity preferences of people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury in Australia.
methodsThe research team comprised researchers, people with lived experience of traumatic brain injury and health professionals with expertise in traumatic brain injury. We followed a four-stage process: (1) identification of key constructs and initial expression of attributes, (2) critique and refinement of attributes, (3) prioritisation of attributes and refinement of levels and (4) testing and refining language, format and comprehensibility. Data collection included deliberative dialogue, focus groups and think-aloud interviews with 22 purposively sampled people living with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. Strategies were used to support inclusive participation. Analysis employed qualitative description and framework methods.
resultsThis formative process resulted in discarding, merging, renaming and reconceptualising attributes and levels. Attributes were reduced from an initial list of 17 to six: (1) Type of activity, (2) Out-of-pocket cost, (3) Travel time, (4) Who with, (5) Facilitated by and (6) Accessibility of setting. Confusing terminology and cumbersome features of the survey instrument were also revised. Challenges included purposive recruitment, reducing diverse stakeholder views to a few attributes, finding the right language and navigating the complexity of discrete choice experiment scenarios.
conclusionsThis formative co-development process significantly improved the relevance and comprehensibility of the discrete choice experiment survey tool. This process may be applicable in other discrete choice experiment studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.