TY - JOUR
T1 - Using expert opinion rounds to develop valid and realistic manipulations for experimental video-vignette research
T2 - Results from a study on clinicians’ (un)reasonable argumentative support for treatment decisions in neonatal care
AU - Labrie, Nanon
AU - Kunneman, Marleen
AU - van Veenendaal, Nicole
AU - van Kempen, Anne
AU - van Vliet, Liesbeth
N1 - Funding Information: This work was supported by a personal grant awarded to N.H.M. Labrie by the Dutch Research Council (NWO, VI.Veni.191S.032 ). The funding source had no involvement in the study design; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; the writing of the report; and the decision to submit the article for publication. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors
PY - 2023/7/1
Y1 - 2023/7/1
N2 - Objective: To develop valid and realistic manipulations for video-vignette research using expert opinion rounds, in preparation of an experimental study on clinicians’ (un)reasonable argumentative support for treatment decisions in neonatal care. Methods: In three rounds, N = 37 participants (parents/clinicians/researchers) provided feedback on four video-vignette scripts and completed listing, ranking, and rating exercises to determine which (un)reasonable arguments clinicians may provide to support treatment decisions. Results: Round 1: participants deemed the scripts realistic. They judged that, on average, clinicians should provide two arguments for a treatment decision. They listed 13–20 reasonable arguments, depending on the script. Round 2: participants ranked the two most salient, reasonable arguments per script. Round 3: participants rated the most plausible, unreasonable arguments from a predefined list. These results guided the design of 12 experimental conditions. Conclusion: Expert opinion rounds are an effective method to develop video-vignettes that are theoretically sound and ecologically realistic and offer a powerful means to include stakeholders in experimental research design. Our study yielded some preliminary insights into what are considered prevalent (un)reasonable arguments for clinicians’ treatment plans. Practice implications: We provide hands-on guidelines on involving stakeholders in the design of video-vignette experiments and the development of video-based health communication interventions – both for research and practice.
AB - Objective: To develop valid and realistic manipulations for video-vignette research using expert opinion rounds, in preparation of an experimental study on clinicians’ (un)reasonable argumentative support for treatment decisions in neonatal care. Methods: In three rounds, N = 37 participants (parents/clinicians/researchers) provided feedback on four video-vignette scripts and completed listing, ranking, and rating exercises to determine which (un)reasonable arguments clinicians may provide to support treatment decisions. Results: Round 1: participants deemed the scripts realistic. They judged that, on average, clinicians should provide two arguments for a treatment decision. They listed 13–20 reasonable arguments, depending on the script. Round 2: participants ranked the two most salient, reasonable arguments per script. Round 3: participants rated the most plausible, unreasonable arguments from a predefined list. These results guided the design of 12 experimental conditions. Conclusion: Expert opinion rounds are an effective method to develop video-vignettes that are theoretically sound and ecologically realistic and offer a powerful means to include stakeholders in experimental research design. Our study yielded some preliminary insights into what are considered prevalent (un)reasonable arguments for clinicians’ treatment plans. Practice implications: We provide hands-on guidelines on involving stakeholders in the design of video-vignette experiments and the development of video-based health communication interventions – both for research and practice.
KW - Argumentation
KW - Clinician-patient communication
KW - Decision-making
KW - Expert opinion rounds
KW - Neonatal intensive care unit
KW - Parents
KW - Preterm infants
KW - Stakeholder involvement
KW - Video-vignette research
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85151245532&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85151245532&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85151245532&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36996589
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2023.107715
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2023.107715
M3 - Article
C2 - 36996589
SN - 0738-3991
VL - 112
JO - Patient Education and Counseling
JF - Patient Education and Counseling
M1 - 107715
ER -