Best-Worst Scaling and the Prioritization of Objects in Health: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Best-worst scaling is a theory-driven method that can be used to prioritize objects in health. We sought to characterize all studies of best-worst scaling to prioritize objects in health, to assess trends of using best-worst scaling in prioritization over time, and to assess the relationship between a legacy measure of quality (PREFS) and a novel assessment of subjective quality and policy relevance. METHODS: A systematic review identified studies published through to the end of 2021 that applied best-worst scaling to study priorities in health (PROSPERO CRD42020209745), updating a prior review published in 2016. The PubMed, EBSCOhost, Embase, Scopus, APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were used and were supplemented by a hand search. Data describing the application, development, design, administration/analysis, quality, and policy relevance were summarized and we tested for trends by comparing articles before and after 1 January, 2017. Multivariate statistics were then used to assess the relationships between PREFS, subjective quality, policy relevance, and other possible indicators. RESULTS: From a total of 2826 unique papers identified, 165 best-worst scaling studies were included in this review. Applications of best-worst scaling to study priorities in health have continued to grow (p < 0.01) and are now used in all regions of the world, most often to study the priorities of patients/consumers (67%). Several key trends can be observed over time increased use of pretesting (p < 0.05); increased use of online administration (p < 0.01), and decreased use of paper self-administered surveys (p = 0.02); increased use of heterogeneity analysis (p = 0.02); an increase in having a clearly stated purpose (p < 0.01); and a decrease in comparing respondents to non-respondents (p = 0.01). The average sample size has more than doubled, from 228 to 472 respondents, but formal sample size justifications remain low (5.3%) and unchanged over time (p = 0.68). While the average PREFS score remained unchanged at 3.1/5, both subjective quality and policy relevance trended up, but changes were not statistically significant (p = 0.06 and p = 0.13). Most of the variation in subjective quality was driven by PREFS (R2 = 0.42), but it was also positively assosciated with policy relevance, heterogeneity analysis, and using a balanced incomplete block design, and was negatively associated with not using developmental methods and an increasing sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Using best-worst scaling to prioritize objects is now commonly used around the world to assess the priorities of patients and other stakeholders in health. Best practices are clearly emerging for best-worst scaling. Although legacy measures (PREFS) to measure study quality are reasonable, there may need to be new tools to assess both study quality and policy relevance.