Using expert opinion rounds to develop valid and realistic manipulations for experimental video-vignette research: Results from a study on clinicians’ (un)reasonable argumentative support for treatment decisions in neonatal care

Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 112, pp. 107715

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.

Authors 5

1. Nanon Labrie corresponding

   OLVG · Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Language, Literature & Communication, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Pediatrics and Neonatology, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: n.h.m.labrie@vu.nl

   Department of Language, Literature & Communication, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

   Department of Pediatrics and Neonatology, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

2. Marleen Kunneman Aachen Medical Decision Making Department of Biomedical Data Sciences

   Leiden University · Mayo Clinic · Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Medical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA

   Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA

   Medical Decision Making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands

3. Nicole R. van Veenendaal

   Emma Kinderziekenhuis · OLVG · Amsterdam University Medical Centers · University of Amsterdam

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Pediatrics and Neonatology, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

   Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

   Department of Pediatrics and Neonatology, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

4. Anne A.M.W. van Kempen

   OLVG

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Pediatrics and Neonatology, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

5. Liesbeth van Vliet Aachen Health Medical and Neuropsychology Unit Institute of Psychology, Leiden University

   Leiden University

   Affiliation as printed

   Health, Medical and Neuropsychology Unit, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands