↓ Skip to main content

Experience-Based Values: A Framework for Classifying Different Types of Experience in Health Valuation Research

Overview of attention for article published in The Patient, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 290)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Experience-Based Values: A Framework for Classifying Different Types of Experience in Health Valuation Research
Published in
The Patient, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40271-017-0292-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia Cubi-Molla, Koonal Shah, Kristina Burström

Abstract

Whether health values should be elicited from the perspective of patients or the general public is still an open debate. The overall aim of this paper is to increase knowledge on the role of experience in health preference-based valuation research. The objectives of this paper are threefold. First, we elaborate the idea of experience-based (EB) values under the informed value or knowledge viewpoint. We think the whole scope of knowledge about the health states involved in valuation exercises is not fully integrated in the previous literature. For instance, personal knowledge based on past experiences, contemplating the health state as a likely future condition, knowing someone who is currently experiencing the state, or just receiving detailed information about the health states; all these situations capture different nuances of health-related experience which are not explicitly referred to in valuation tasks. Second, we propose a framework where the extended factor of experience is detached from other factors interwoven into the valuation exercise. Third, we examine how experience is tackled in different value sets (EB or non-EB) identified via a literature review. We identified the following elements (and items) in a value set: health state (without description, described using a multi-attribute instrument, described using other method), reference person (the respondent; other person, similar/known/hypothetical), time frame (past, present, future), raters (public, representative/convenience; vested interest, patients/other) and experience (personal experience, past/present/future; vicarious experience, affective/non-affective; no experience). Forty-nine valuation exercises were extracted from 22 reviewed papers and classified following our suggested set of elements and items. The results show that the role of experience reported in health valuation-related papers is frequently disregarded or, at most, minimised to the item of personal experience (present)-linked to self-reported health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 50%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Professor 1 13%
Unspecified 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 25%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 25%
Computer Science 1 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 13%
Sports and Recreations 1 13%
Other 1 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,061,535
of 12,416,981 outputs
Outputs from The Patient
#31
of 290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,508
of 358,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Patient
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,416,981 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 358,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.