ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2026
How Applied Researchers Engage with Methodological Tutorials: A Three-step Test Interview Study of an R Tutorial for Trial-Based Economic Evaluation.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMethodological tutorials support the application of statistical methods in health technology assessment. Using an R tutorial for trial-based economic evaluation as a case study, we explored how applied researchers engaged with the tutorial and identified factors influencing its usability and perceived value.
methodsWe conducted a three-step test interview study with applied researchers without experience with the tutorial (n = 17) and semi-structured interviews with applied researchers who had previously used it in their own work (n = 3). Participants worked through the tutorial whilst thinking aloud, followed by focussed and reflective interviews. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsThree themes were generated: (1) 'getting in and getting it to run', describing technical barriers; (2) 'understanding and making sense of what tutorials teach', reflecting challenges in applying methods and interpreting outputs; and (3) 'adapting and applying tutorials in practice', highlighting difficulties modifying code for real-world datasets. Barriers stemmed not only from methodological complexity but also from software setup, unclear terminology, limited coding skills and lack of support. Despite these, participants described tutorials in general as efficient learning tools when clearly structured, transparent and adaptable.
conclusionsWe derived practical considerations that may help improve the accessibility, clarity and adaptability of future methodological tutorials. Methodological tutorials can support the learning and application of statistical methods, but their effective use depends on technical accessibility, user capability and access to support. These findings may inform future tutorial design and the development and validation of more structured guidance, such as a checklist for tutorial development.
Identifiers
42711545What 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.