Attributes development for a discrete choice experiment on preferences in sexual and reproductive health services for adolescents and young people in Nigeria

Abstract

Background: A major component of the validity of the discrete choice experiment (DCE) research design lies in the correct specification of attributes and levels relevant to the research focus. In this paper, we set out the validation steps we took in designing the tool for a DCE on preferences in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services for adolescents and young people. Methodology: This study was carried out among adolescents and young people (AYP) in Ogun State, Southwest Nigeria. We used a three-step mixed-methods process in developing the attributes and attribute-levels for our DCE tool. The first was to conduct a series of 16 focus group discussions (FGD) with AYP ensuring maximal variation (by age group, sex, marital status, and location). The FGD included a priority listing process in which participants were asked to list and rank the most important characteristics of optimal SRH services for AYP. The lists were harmonized and items were scored. The main (highest scoring) themes emerging from the harmonized priority list were converted into an initial set of attributes and the subthemes as level. These initial attributes and levels were presented to a panel of methods and content experts in a virtual modified Delphi process. This was for deciding on the importance of the attributes in providing optimum sexual and reproductive health services for young people, and the appropriateness of the levels. The same set of attributes was presented to another set of AYP in a series of four FGD to clarify meanings, and test whether the wordings were well understood. We applied some decision rules for including and excluding attributes and levels in the different phases of the development process. Results: We extracted an initial set of nine attributes with 2-4 levels each from the first FGD sessions. These were revised to a final set of seven attributes with 2-4 levels each based on findings from the expert review and final validation FGDs with AYP. The final attributes were: the type of staff, physical environment, health worker attitude, cost, waiting time, contraceptive availability, and opening hours. Conclusion: The final set of attributes covered those relating to the services provided, the health workers providing the services, and the AYP. Our three-step process which included both quantitative and qualitative approaches ensured a rigorous process that produced a reliable combination of attributes and levels. Although we had to trade off some competing attributes to come to a final list, our decision rules helped us to conduct a transparent and reproducible process.