Understanding the Participant Experience of Qualitative Interview Studies To Inform Future Study Design: Analysis of Feedback Forms

Author(s)

Macey J1, Al-Zubeidi T2, Aldhouse NVJ2, Kitchen H1
1Clarivate, London, LON, UK, 2Clarivate, London, England, UK

OBJECTIVES: To understand the patient/caregiver experience of participating in a clinical outcomes assessment (COA) qualitative interview study to inform future study design.

METHODS: Participants in COA studies in various diseases (e.g. inflammatory, infectious, rare), in the US, Germany, Japan and China, from 2018 to 2023 completed a brief, optional feedback form after their concept elicitation and/or cognitive debriefing interview. Free text questions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and multiple-choice questions were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS: Feedback forms from 106 patients (n=89) and caregivers (n=13 of children/adolescents; n=4 of adults) who participated in a remote (online/telephone; n=59) or face-to-face (n=47) interview lasting 90- (n=77), 75- (n=1) 60- (n=19), 45- (n=3) or 30-minutes (n=6) were analyzed.

Free-text responses indicated participants felt positive about their overall interview experience. The invitation and interview processes were described as good, easy, comfortable and professional; some participants commended their interviewer for being considerate in handling sensitive topics. Positive feelings and nervousness or curiosity were felt before participation and, afterwards, participants felt happy to have contributed to research. Problems and suggestions for improvements were few and varied but predominantly related to methodology (e.g. less repetition, technical difficulties with video conferencing) and accommodations for children (e.g. simplifying questions).

Multiple-choice responses revealed that participants felt their interview format and length was appropriate (88% and 80%, respectively). Participants would most like to be interviewed by a researcher (56%) over their doctor/nurse or a patient/caregiver peer (1-8%) or had no interviewer preference (31%). Most (76%) participants reported being very likely to participate in other research interviews based on their experience.

CONCLUSIONS: Participants were happy with their interview and valued contributing to research. Additional explanation regarding COA interview methodology (e.g. importance of item-by-item debriefing and thus the potential for repetitive questioning) and mitigating potential remote interview technical difficulties may be beneficial and appreciated.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2024-05, ISPOR 2024, Atlanta, GA, USA

Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 6, S1 (June 2024)

Code

PCR186

Topic

Patient-Centered Research

Topic Subcategory

Instrument Development, Validation, & Translation, Patient Behavior and Incentives, Patient Engagement, Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×