MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951471910 · doi:10.2147/ppa.s201401

<p>A discrete choice experiment on preferences of patients with low back pain about non-surgical treatments: identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels</p>

2019· article· en· W2951471910 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas G. Poder, Marion Beffarat, Maria Benkhalti, Ginette Ladouceur, Pierre Dagenais

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Preference and Adherence · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFocus groupContext (archaeology)PreferenceStakeholderIdentification (biology)Cognitive reframingSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceSocial psychologyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) needs to consider all relevant data to help decision making, including patients’ preferences. In this study, we comprehensively describe the process of identification, refinement and selection of attributes and levels for a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Methods: A mixed-methods design was used to identify attributes and levels explaining low back pain (LBP) patients’ choice for a non-surgical treatment. This design combined a systematic literature review with a patients’ focus group, one-on-one interactions with experts and patients, and discussions with stakeholder committee members. Following the patient’s focus group, preference exercises were conducted. A consensus about the attributes and levels was researched during discussions with committee members. Results: The literature review yielded 40 attributes to consider in patients’ treatment choice. During the focus group, one additional attribute emerged. The preference exercises allowed selecting eight attributes for the DCE. These eight attributes and their levels were discussed and validated by the committee members who helped reframe two levels in one of the attributes and delete one attribute. The final seven attributes were: treatment modality, pain reduction, onset of treatment efficacy, duration of efficacy, difficulty in daily living activities, sleep problem, and knowledge about their body and pain. Conclusion: This study is one of the few to comprehensively describe the selection process of attributes and levels for a DCE. This may help ensure transparency and judge the quality of the decision-making process. In the context of a HB-HTA unit, this strengthens the legitimacy to perform a DCE to better inform decision makers in a patient-centered care approach. Keywords: low back pain, preference, treatment, choice

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Preference and AdherenceSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207