Identifying and prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia

Bridges, John F.P.; Gallego, Gisselle; Kudo, Masatoshi; Okita, Kiwamu; Han, Kwang Hyub; Ye, Sheng Long; Blauvelt, Barri M.

doi:10.1186/1472-6963-11-298

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…46,47 Other analytical approaches included the use of grounded theory methods such as the constant comparative method 48 and open-ended coding. 49 Three studies detailed the use of specialist qualitative software: 2 studies 36,50 (2%) used NVivo, and 1 study 51 used Atlas.ti.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The use of qualitative research (QR) methods is recommended as good practice in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). This study investigated the use and reporting of QR to inform the design and/or interpretation of healthcare-related DCEs and explored the perceived usefulness of such methods. Methods. DCEs were identified from a systematic search of the MEDLINE database. Studies were classified by the quantity of QR reported (none, basic, or extensive). Authors (n = 91) of papers reporting the use of QR were invited to complete an online survey eliciting their views about using the methods. Results. A total of 254 healthcare DCEs were included in the review; of these, 111 (44%) did not report using any qualitative methods; 114 (45%) reported “basic” information; and 29 (11%) reported or cited “extensive” use of qualitative methods. Studies reporting the use of qualitative methods used them to select attributes and/or levels (n = 95; 66%) and/or pilot the DCE survey (n = 26; 18%). Popular qualitative methods included focus groups (n = 63; 44%) and interviews (n = 109; 76%). Forty-four studies (31%) reported the analytical approach, with content (n = 10; 7%) and framework analysis (n = 5; 4%) most commonly reported. The survey identified that all responding authors (n = 50; 100%) found that qualitative methods added value to their DCE study, but many (n = 22; 44%) reported that journals were uninterested in the reporting of QR results. Conclusions. Despite recommendations that QR methods be used alongside DCEs, the use of QR methods is not consistently reported. The lack of reporting risks the inference that QR methods are of little use in DCE research, contradicting practitioners’ assessments. Explicit guidelines would enable more clarity and consistency in reporting, and journals should facilitate such reporting via online supplementary materials.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further research is also necessary to prioritize the strategies that could address the major needs. A pilot study of liver cancer clinicians in Asia indicated that conjoint analysis shows promise for transparent prioritization of strategies, and suggests a follow-up study with multiple stakeholder groups in European countries would be informative (Bridges et al 2011e).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Priorities for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Control: A Comparison of Policy Needs in Five European Countries

Bridges¹,

Joy²,

Gallego³

et al. 2012

Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2006, the European Parliament designated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) a serious public health problem, recognizing it as both a complex and deadly cancer. The authors conducted the first comparative needs assessment for HCC across five European countries. One hundred HCC experts assessed ten dimensions of HCC control. Common needs exist for lifestyle risk factor management (p 5 0.001), political awareness (p 5 0.001) and public awareness (p 5 0.001). Discordances were found on funding for treatment (p ¼ 0.001) and screening (p ¼ 0.006), hepatitis C (p ¼ 0.035), and hepatitis B (p ¼ 0.050) strategies. The findings identify the priority needs, both common and country-specific, that should be addressed in these countries.

show abstract

“…In a previously published pilot study on this topic, the conjoint analysis approach was shown to be both feasible and functional even in a very low sample size (n=20) [54]. Several limitations of the original study were identified and were corrected in this present application of the technique.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, while a sample size of 20 was sufficient to measure aggregate priorities, we have aimed to examine heterogeneity across sites in Asia or across different stakeholder subgroups. Third, based on the pilot results, and comparison with qualitative data, several modifications to the survey instrument were recommended in the previous publication [54] and all have been incorporated here. Finally, the previous publication used publication guidelines designed for qualitative research, and not specifically targeted for conjoint analysis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data from previous qualitative interviews (n=20) with international liver cancer clinicians were analyzed using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis to identify these strategies [54]. A pilot was then conducted with clinicians from China, Japan, and Korea to assess the importance of these strategies in comparison with the qualitative data [54].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia: a conjoint analysis

Bridges

Dong

Gallego

et al. 2012

BMC Health Serv Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLiver cancer is a complex and burdensome disease, with Asia accounting for 75% of known cases. Comprehensive cancer control requires the use of multiple strategies, but various stakeholders may have different views as to which strategies should have the highest priority. This study identified priorities across multiple strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control (CLCC) from the perspective of liver cancer clinical, policy, and advocacy stakeholders in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Concordance of priorities was assessed across the region and across respondent roles.MethodsPriorities for CLCC were examined as part of a cross-sectional survey of liver cancer experts. Respondents completed several conjoint-analysis choice tasks to prioritize 11 strategies. In each task, respondents judged which of two competing CLCC plans, consisting of mutually exclusive and exhaustive subsets of the strategies, would have the greatest impact. The dependent variable was the chosen plan, which was then regressed on the strategies of different plans. The restricted least squares (RLS) method was utilized to compare aggregate and stratified models, and t-tests and Wald tests were used to test for significance and concordance, respectively.ResultsEighty respondents (69.6%) were eligible and completed the survey. Their primary interests were hepatitis (26%), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (58%), metastatic liver cancer (10%) and transplantation (6%). The most preferred strategies were monitoring at-risk populations (p<0.001), clinician education (p<0.001), and national guidelines (p<0.001). Most priorities were concordant across sites except for three strategies: transplantation infrastructure (p=0.009) was valued lower in China, measuring social burden (p=0.037) was valued higher in Taiwan, and national guidelines (p=0.025) was valued higher in China. Priorities did not differ across stakeholder groups (p=0.438).ConclusionsPriorities for CLCC in Asia include monitoring at-risk populations, clinician education, national guidelines, multidisciplinary management, public awareness and centers of excellence. As most priorities are relatively concordant across the region, multilateral approaches to addressing comprehensive liver cancer would be beneficial. However, where priorities are discordant among sites, such as transplantation infrastructure, strategies should be tailored to local needs.

show abstract

Identifying and prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia

Cited by 17 publications

References 61 publications

The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments

The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments

Priorities for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Control: A Comparison of Policy Needs in Five European Countries

Prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia: a conjoint analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About