Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2009

Open Access 01-12-2009 | Research article

Investigating the complementary value of discrete choice experiments for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research: a questionnaire survey

Authors: Debby van Helvoort-Postulart, Trudy van der Weijden, Benedict GC Dellaert, Mascha de Kok, Maarten F von Meyenfeldt, Carmen D Dirksen

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The potential barriers and facilitators to change should guide the choice of implementation strategy. Implementation researchers believe that existing methods for the evaluation of potential barriers and facilitators are not satisfactory. Discrete choice experiments (DCE) are relatively new in the health care sector to investigate preferences, and may be of value in the field of implementation research. The objective of our study was to investigate the complementary value of DCE for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research.

Methods

Clinical subject was the implementation of the guideline for breast cancer surgery in day care. We identified 17 potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of this guideline. We used a traditional questionnaire that was made up of statements about the potential barriers and facilitators. Respondents answered 17 statements on a five-point scale ranging from one (fully disagree) to five (fully agree). The potential barriers and facilitators were included in the DCE as decision attributes. Data were gathered among anaesthesiologists, surgical oncologists, and breast care nurses by means of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire.

Results

The overall response was 10%. The most striking finding was that the responses to the traditional questionnaire hardly differentiated between barriers. Forty-seven percent of the respondents thought that DCE is an inappropriate method. These respondents considered DCE too difficult and too time-consuming. Unlike the traditional questionnaire, the results of a DCE provide implementation researchers and clinicians with a relative attribute importance ranking that can be used to prioritize potential barriers and facilitators to change, and hence to better fine-tune the implementation strategies to the specific problems and challenges of a particular implementation process.

Conclusion

The results of our DCE and traditional questionnaire would probably lead to different implementation strategies. Although there is no 'gold standard' for prioritising potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of change, theoretically, DCE would be the method of choice. However, the feasibility of using DCE was less favourable. Further empirical applications should investigate whether DCE can really make a valuable contribution to the implementation science.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Grol R, Jones R: Twenty years of implementation research. Fam Pract. 2000, 17: S32-S35. 10.1093/fampra/17.suppl_1.S32.CrossRefPubMed Grol R, Jones R: Twenty years of implementation research. Fam Pract. 2000, 17: S32-S35. 10.1093/fampra/17.suppl_1.S32.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Grol R: Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care. 2001, 39: II-46-II-54. 10.1097/00005650-200108002-00003.CrossRef Grol R: Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care. 2001, 39: II-46-II-54. 10.1097/00005650-200108002-00003.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Grol R, Grimshaw J: From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet. 2003, 362: 1225-1230. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14546-1.CrossRefPubMed Grol R, Grimshaw J: From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet. 2003, 362: 1225-1230. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14546-1.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M: Improving patient care: the implementation of change in clinical practice. 2005, Oxford: Elsevier Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M: Improving patient care: the implementation of change in clinical practice. 2005, Oxford: Elsevier
5.
go back to reference Bosch M, van der Weijden T, Wensing M, Grol R: Tailoring quality improvement interventions to identified barriers: a multiple case analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007, 13: 161-168. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00660.x.CrossRefPubMed Bosch M, van der Weijden T, Wensing M, Grol R: Tailoring quality improvement interventions to identified barriers: a multiple case analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007, 13: 161-168. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00660.x.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Will BP, Berthelot JM, Le Petit C, Tomiak EM, Verma S, Evans WK: Estimates of the lifetime costs of breast cancer treatment in Canada. Eur J Cancer. 2000, 36: 724-735. 10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00340-8.CrossRefPubMed Will BP, Berthelot JM, Le Petit C, Tomiak EM, Verma S, Evans WK: Estimates of the lifetime costs of breast cancer treatment in Canada. Eur J Cancer. 2000, 36: 724-735. 10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00340-8.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Frotscher C, Beets G, Hebly M, Dirksen CD, Kessels A, Bemelmans M, Marcus M, Meyenfeldt von M: Breast cancer surgery in ambulatory setting: blessing or curse. Frotscher C, Beets G, Hebly M, Dirksen CD, Kessels A, Bemelmans M, Marcus M, Meyenfeldt von M: Breast cancer surgery in ambulatory setting: blessing or curse.
8.
go back to reference van Helvoort-Postulart D, Dellaert BGC, van der Weijden T, von Meyenfeldt MF, Dirksen CD: Discrete choice experiments for complex health care decisions: does hierarchical information integration offer a solution?. Health Econ. 2008 van Helvoort-Postulart D, Dellaert BGC, van der Weijden T, von Meyenfeldt MF, Dirksen CD: Discrete choice experiments for complex health care decisions: does hierarchical information integration offer a solution?. Health Econ. 2008
9.
go back to reference Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD: Stated choice methods: analysis and application. 2000, Cambridge University PressCrossRef Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD: Stated choice methods: analysis and application. 2000, Cambridge University PressCrossRef
10.
go back to reference American Marketing Association: Conjoint analysis: a guide for designing and interpreting conjoint studies. Market Research Division, Marketing Research Techniques Series. 1992 American Marketing Association: Conjoint analysis: a guide for designing and interpreting conjoint studies. Market Research Division, Marketing Research Techniques Series. 1992
11.
go back to reference Louviere JJ: Hierarchical information integration: a new method for the design and analysis of complex multiattribute judgment problems. Adv Consum Res. 1984, 11: 148-155. Louviere JJ: Hierarchical information integration: a new method for the design and analysis of complex multiattribute judgment problems. Adv Consum Res. 1984, 11: 148-155.
12.
go back to reference Oppewal H, Louviere JJ, Timmermans HJP: Modeling hierarchical conjoint processes with integrated choice experiments. J Marketing Res. 1994, 31: 92-105. 10.2307/3151949.CrossRef Oppewal H, Louviere JJ, Timmermans HJP: Modeling hierarchical conjoint processes with integrated choice experiments. J Marketing Res. 1994, 31: 92-105. 10.2307/3151949.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Oppewal H, Vriens M: Measuring perceived service quality using integrated conjoint experiments. International Journal of Bank Marketing. 2000, 18: 154-169. 10.1108/02652320010349049.CrossRef Oppewal H, Vriens M: Measuring perceived service quality using integrated conjoint experiments. International Journal of Bank Marketing. 2000, 18: 154-169. 10.1108/02652320010349049.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Sitzia J, Wood N: Response rate in patient satisfaction research: an analysis of 210 published studies. Int J Qual Health C. 1998, 10: 311-317. 10.1093/intqhc/10.4.311.CrossRef Sitzia J, Wood N: Response rate in patient satisfaction research: an analysis of 210 published studies. Int J Qual Health C. 1998, 10: 311-317. 10.1093/intqhc/10.4.311.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA: Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997, 50: 1129-1136. 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00126-1.CrossRefPubMed Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA: Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997, 50: 1129-1136. 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00126-1.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Scott A, Vick S: Patients, doctors and contracts: an application of principle-agent theory to the doctor-patient relationship. Scott J Polit Econ. 1999, 46: 111-134. 10.1111/1467-9485.00124.CrossRef Scott A, Vick S: Patients, doctors and contracts: an application of principle-agent theory to the doctor-patient relationship. Scott J Polit Econ. 1999, 46: 111-134. 10.1111/1467-9485.00124.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Ryan M: Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med. 1999, 48: 535-546. 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00374-8.CrossRefPubMed Ryan M: Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med. 1999, 48: 535-546. 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00374-8.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Braithwaite D, Emery J, de Lusignan S, Sutton S: Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative?. Fam Pract. 2003, 20: 545-551. 10.1093/fampra/cmg509.CrossRefPubMed Braithwaite D, Emery J, de Lusignan S, Sutton S: Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative?. Fam Pract. 2003, 20: 545-551. 10.1093/fampra/cmg509.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Brown SL, Kittleson MJ: E-mail versus Web survey response rates among health education professionals. AJHS. 2005, 20: Brown SL, Kittleson MJ: E-mail versus Web survey response rates among health education professionals. AJHS. 2005, 20:
20.
go back to reference Stuber KJ, Grod JP, Smith DL, Powers P: An online survey of chiropractors' opinions of continuing education. Chiropractic & Osteopathy. 2005, 13: 22-10.1186/1746-1340-13-22.CrossRef Stuber KJ, Grod JP, Smith DL, Powers P: An online survey of chiropractors' opinions of continuing education. Chiropractic & Osteopathy. 2005, 13: 22-10.1186/1746-1340-13-22.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Coast J, Flynn TN, Salisbury C, Louviere J, Peters TJ: Maximising responses to discrete choice experiments: a randomized trial. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 2006, 5: 249-260. 10.2165/00148365-200605040-00006.CrossRefPubMed Coast J, Flynn TN, Salisbury C, Louviere J, Peters TJ: Maximising responses to discrete choice experiments: a randomized trial. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 2006, 5: 249-260. 10.2165/00148365-200605040-00006.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Investigating the complementary value of discrete choice experiments for the evaluation of barriers and facilitators in implementation research: a questionnaire survey
Authors
Debby van Helvoort-Postulart
Trudy van der Weijden
Benedict GC Dellaert
Mascha de Kok
Maarten F von Meyenfeldt
Carmen D Dirksen
Publication date
01-12-2009
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2009
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-10

Other articles of this Issue 1/2009

Implementation Science 1/2009 Go to the issue