Abstract
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 107715 |
| Journal | Patient Education and Counseling |
| Volume | 112 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jul 2023 |
Bibliographical note
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
Funding
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.
Keywords
- Argumentation
- Clinician-patient communication
- Decision-making
- Expert opinion rounds
- Neonatal intensive care unit
- Parents
- Preterm infants
- Stakeholder involvement
- Video-vignette research