Methods for think-aloud interviews in health-related resource-use research: the PECUNIA RUM instrument

References

• Noben CY, De Rijk A, Nijhuis F, et al. The exchangeability of self-reports and administrative health care resource use measurements: assessment of the methodological reporting quality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jun 01;74:93–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen LMM, Drost RMWA, Paulus ATG, et al. Aspects and challenges of resource use measurement in health economics: towards a comprehensive measurement framework. Pharmaco Economics. 2021 Sep 01;39(9):983–993.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Janssen LMM, Pokhilenko I, Evers S, et al. Exploring the identification, validation, and categorization of the cost and benefits of criminal justice in mental health: the PECUNIA project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;Jul 27 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Pokhilenko I, Janssen LM, Evers SM, et al. Exploring the identification, validation, and categorization of costs and benefits of education in mental health: the PECUNIA project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(4):325–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritter PL, Stewart AL, Kaymaz H, et al. Self-reports of health care utilization compared to provider records. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Feb 01;54(2):136–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung AH, Dewa CS, Wasylenki D. Economic grand rounds: impact on cost estimates of differences in reports of service use among clients, caseworkers, and hospital records. Psychiatric Serv. 2003;54(10):1328–1330.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Richards SH, Coast J, Peters TJ. Patient-reported use of health service resources compared with information from health providers. Health Soc Care Community. 2003;Nov;11(6):510–518.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health. 2005;27(3):281–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breda CS. Parent and institutional agreement on children’s use of mental health services. Eval Program Plann. 1996 May 01;19(2):165–173.
   Google Scholar
• Hoogendoorn M, van Wetering CR, Schols AM, et al. Self-report versus care provider registration of healthcare utilization: impact on cost and cost-utility. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(4):588–595.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thorn JC. Resource-use measurement based on patient recall: issues and challenges for economic evaluation. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):155–161.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Charters E. The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education: a Journal of Educational Research and Practice. 2010 May 01;12:68–82.
   Google Scholar
• Fan M Practices and challenges of using think-aloud protocols in industry: an international survey. Journal of Usability Studies. 2020;15(2):85–102.
   Google Scholar
• Corrigan PW, Druss BG, Perlick DA. The impact of mental illness stigma on seeking and participating in mental health care. Psychol Sci Public Interes. 2014 Oct 01;15(2):37–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willis GB, Artino AR Jr. What do our respondents think we’re asking? Using cognitive interviewing to improve medical education surveys. J Grad Med Educ. 2013 Sep;5(3):353–356.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eccles DW, Arsal G. The think aloud method: what is it and how do I use it? Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2017 Aug 08; 9(4):514–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Haak M, De Jong M, Jan Schellens P. Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: testing the usability of an online library catalogue. Behaviour Inf Technol. 2003 Sep 01;22(5):339–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French DP, Cooke R, McLean N, et al. What do people think about when they answer theory of planned behaviour questionnaires?: A `think aloud’ study. J Health Psychol. 2007 Jul 01;12(4):672–687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Oort L, Schröder C, French DP. What do people think about when they answer the brief illness perception questionnaire? A ‘think-aloud’ study. Br J Health Psychol. 2011 May;16(Pt 2):231–245.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garfield K, Husbands S, Thorn JC, et al. Development of a brief, generic, modular resource-use measure (ModRUM): cognitive interviews with patients. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Apr 21;21(1):371.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gomes B, McCrone P, Hall S, et al. Cognitive interviewing of bereaved relatives to improve the measurement of health outcomes and care utilisation at the end of life in a mortality followback survey. Support Care Cancer. 2013 Oct 01;21(10):2835–2844.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wolcott MD, Lobczowski NG. Using cognitive interviews and think-aloud protocols to understand thought processes. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2021 Feb;13(2):181–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coast J, McDonald R, Baker R. Issues arising from the use of qualitative methods in health economics. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004 Aug 01;9:171–176.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ikart E. Questionnaire pretesting methods: a comparison of cognitive interviewing and respondent debriefing Vis-À-Vis the study of the adoption of decision support systems by knowledge workers. The International Journal of Business and Information. 2018;13:119.
   Google Scholar
• Kudela MS, Forsyth BH, Levin K, et al. Cognitive interviewing versus behavior coding. Montreal, Canada: American Association of Public Opinion Research; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• PECUNIA. Vision & Mission 2018. [cited 2019 Apr 30]. Available from: https://pecunia-project.eu/project/vision-and-mission
   Google Scholar
• PECUNIA. What is not measured is not counted: PECUNIA resource use measurement (RUM) instrument 2021. [cited 2021 Feb 11]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=−105iC8uyJY&list=PLLs7wxGKuKWIgzXIMnNn9pbQ5PHDI_omJ&index=5&ab_channel=PECUNIAProjectEU
   Google Scholar
• PECUNIA. PECUNIA resource use meausrement Instrument (PECUNIA RUM). 2021. [cited Version 1.0/2021 11- 02-2021].Available from:
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;01/01(3):77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Bristol U. Lone Working Guidance Bristol. [cited 2021 Oct 1]. Available from: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/safety/media/gn/lone-working-gn.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Littvay L. Questionnaire design considerations with planned missing data. Review of Psychology. 2009;16(2):103–113.
   Google Scholar
• Tourangeau R, Hanover L. The survey response process from a cognitive viewpoint. Qual Assur Educ. 2018 Mar 06;26: 00–00.
   Google Scholar
• Li D. Trustworthiness of think‐aloud protocols in the study of translation processes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2004 Oct 20;14(3):301–313.
   Google Scholar
• Guba EG. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Ectj. 1981 Jun 01;29(2):75.
   Google Scholar
• Frambach JM, van der Vleuten CPM, Durning SJ. AM Last Page. Quality criteria in qualitative and quantitative research. Acad Med. 2013;88(4):552.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roche B, Hefferon K. ‘The assessment needs to go hand-in hand with the debriefing’: the importance of a structured coaching debriefing in understanding and applying a positive psychology strengths assessment. International Coaching Psychology Review. 2013 Jan 01;8:1750–2764.
   Google Scholar