Key Insights into Developing Qualitative Concept Elicitation Work for Outcome Measures with Children and Young People

Author:

Husbands SamanthaORCID,Mitchell Paul Mark,Coast Joanna

Abstract

AbstractQualitative concept elicitation can develop meaningful patient-reported outcome measures for children and young people; however, the methods used for concept elicitation are often underreported for this population. This paper provides in-depth insight into the methods used for concept elicitation with children and young people, with a focus on key stages of concept elicitation that are challenging or unique to doing this research with children. Drawing on our experiences of developing wellbeing measures for children and young people aged 6–15 years, we detail the processes followed in our qualitative concept elicitation work, covering issues related to sampling and recruitment, encouraging informed assent and freedom over children and young people’s involvement in concept elicitation, and the use of creative and participatory methods to develop measure items. We provide reflections on the approaches taken to navigate challenging aspects of concept elicitation with children and young people. Our reflections suggest that using existing links and online recruitment methods can help to navigate organisational gatekeepers, and using appropriate processes to develop study information and obtain informed assent can ensure that research is inclusive and that children have the freedom to decide whether to be involved. Our adaptation of a creative and participatory activity to generate concepts for measure items suggests that such approaches can be engaging and may help to give children greater control over their participation. In detailing our methods, we hope to have developed a useful resource for other researchers, while highlighting the value of transparent reporting in this area.

Funder

Wellcome Trust

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference44 articles.

1. Drummond MF, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

2. Kingsley C, Patel S. Patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures. BJA Educ. 2017;17(4):137–44.

3. Weldring T, Smith SM. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights. 2013;6:61–8.

4. Patrick DL, et al. Content validity-establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report: part 1-eliciting concepts for a new PRO Instrument. Value Health. 2011;14(8):967–77.

5. US FDA, Department of Health and Human Services. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims: Guidance for Industry. Silver Spring: US FDA; 2009.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3