Transforming challenges into opportunities: conducting health preference research during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond

The disruptions to health research during the COVID-19 pandemic are being recognized globally, and there is a growing need for understanding the pandemic’s impact on the health and health preferences of patients, caregivers, and the general public. Ongoing and planned health preference research (HPR) has been affected due to problems associated with recruitment, data collection, and data interpretation. While there are no “one size fits all” solutions, this commentary summarizes the key challenges in HPR within the context of the pandemic and offers pragmatic solutions and directions for future research. We recommend recruitment of a diverse, typically under-represented population in HPR using online, quota-based crowdsourcing platforms, and community partnerships. We foresee emerging evidence on remote, and telephone-based HPR modes of administration, with further studies on the shifts in preferences related to health and healthcare services as a result of the pandemic. We believe that the recalibration of HPR, due to what one would hope is an impermanent change, will permanently change how we conduct HPR in the future.

A comparison of the interviewer-administered phone and self-complete online versions of the computerized eMINI 6.0 in a sample of pregnant women

BACKGROUND

This study compares the prevalence rates of depressive and anxiety disorders identified during pregnancy using an interviewer-administered phone version and a self-complete online version of the computerized eMINI 6.0.

METHODS

888 pregnant women completed the computerized eMINI 6.0 (interviewer-administered phone, n = 253; self-complete online, n = 635).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the proportions of women meeting eMINI 6.0 criteria for current major depression, any current anxiety disorder, or lifetime panic or depressive disorder, by mode of administration. However, a greater proportion of women in the interviewer-administered phone group than in the self-complete online group met criteria for current minor depression (2.0% vs 0.2%, p = .008).

LIMITATIONS

Study limitations include its non-randomized design, overall low prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders in the sample and inclusion of only a select number of eMINI 6.0 modules.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated few differences in the rates of DSM-IV depressive and anxiety disorders identified between the interviewer-administered and self-administered versions of the eMINI 6.0. Findings provide preliminary support the practical value of self-completed computerized interviews in large scale studies examining common mental disorders in pregnant women.