IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v13y2020i4d10.1007_s40271-020-00416-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Videos or Text Better for Describing Attributes in Stated-Preference Surveys?

Author

Listed:
  • Stephanie L. Lim

    (Duke University, Duke University Medical Center)

  • Jui-Chen Yang

    (Duke University)

  • Jessie Ehrisman

    (Duke University, Duke University Medical Center)

  • Laura J. Havrilesky

    (Duke University, Duke University Medical Center)

  • Shelby D. Reed

    (Duke University)

Abstract

Objective In stated-preference research, the conventional approach to describing study attributes is through text, often with easy-to-understand graphics. More recently, researchers have begun to present attribute descriptions and content in videos. Some experts have expressed concern regarding internalization and retention of information conveyed via video. Objective Our study aimed to compare respondents’ understanding of attribute information provided via text versus video. Methods Potential respondents were randomized to receive a text or video version of the survey. In the text version, all content was provided in text format along with still graphics. In the video version, text content was interspersed with four video clips, providing the same information as the text version. In both versions, 10 questions were embedded to assess respondents’ understanding of the information presented relating to ovarian cancer treatments. Half of the questions were on treatment benefits and the other half were on treatment-related risks. Some questions asked about the decision context and definitions of treatment features, and others asked about the graphic presentation of treatment features. Preferences for ovarian cancer treatments were also compared between respondents receiving text versus video versions. Results Overall, 150 respondents were recruited. Of the 95 who were eligible and completed the survey, 54 respondents received the text version and 41 received the video version. Median times to completion were 24 and 30 min in the video and text arms, respectively (p

Suggested Citation

  • Stephanie L. Lim & Jui-Chen Yang & Jessie Ehrisman & Laura J. Havrilesky & Shelby D. Reed, 2020. "Are Videos or Text Better for Describing Attributes in Stated-Preference Surveys?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(4), pages 401-408, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00416-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00416-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00416-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-020-00416-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caroline M. Vass & Marco Boeri, 2021. "Mobilising the Next Generation of Stated-Preference Studies: the Association of Access Device with Choice Behaviour and Data Quality," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 55-63, January.
    2. Erich J. Petushek & Anne Inger Mørtvedt & Brittany L. Nelson & Mary C. Hamati, 2021. "The Effect of a Brief, Web-Based Animated Video for Improving Comprehension and Implementation Feasibility for Reducing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-16, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:13:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00416-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.