This article proposes contemporary best-practice recommendations for stated preference (SP) studies used to inform decision making, grounded in the accumulated body of peer-reviewed literature. These recommendations consider the use of SP methods to estimate both use and non-use (passive-use) values, and cover the broad SP domain, including contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. We focus on applications to public goods in the context of the environment and human health but also consider ways in which the proposed recommendations might apply to other common areas of application. The recommendations recognize that SP results may be used and reused (benefit transfers) by governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations, and that all such applications must be considered. The intended result is a set of guidelines for SP studies that is more comprehensive than that of the original National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Blue Ribbon Panel on contingent valuation, is more germane to contemporary applications, and reflects the two decades of research since that time. We also distinguish between practices for which accumulated research is sufficient to support recommendations and those for which greater uncertainty remains. The goal of this article is to raise the quality of SP studies used to support decision making and promote research that will further enhance the practice of these studies worldwide.

/pdf/contemporary-guidance-for-stated-preference-studies-1zcbvub0gv.pdf

Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies

Introduction 
Opioid-based analgesic therapy represents a cornerstone of pain management after surgery. The recent rise in opioid sales and opioid overdoses suggests it is important to maximize the safety of opioid prescribing after surgery. Given that patients may live with other family members in the home, safe storage and appropriate disposal of excess opioids after hospital discharge are necessary to prevent unintended secondary exposures. Identifying characteristics of patients who are likely to be prescribed excess opioids after surgery may enable more targeted prescription practices and safety interventions. Our study aimed to elucidate patient-reported opioid use patterns and modes of home storage of opioids among patients discharged home after Cesarean section (C-section) and thoracic surgery. Specifically, we sought to identify characteristics of patients who reported using about half or more versus less of the opioids prescribed to them for use after hospital discharge.


Methods 
For this cohort study, we developed a survey on quality of analgesia following hospital discharge, amounts of opioids taken relative to the amount prescribed, reasons for not taking all prescribed medications, and storage and disposal methods for leftover opioids. Adult patients, who had C-section or thoracic surgery at a tertiary academic medical center, were given a web-based self-administered survey after discharge. Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations, proportions) were used to describe the study sample and survey results. Comparisons between patients who reported taking about half or more versus less of the opioids prescribed to them for use after hospital discharge were made using unpaired t-tests, Mann-Whitney tests, and Chi-square tests as appropriate.


Results 
The majority (53%) of respondents after C-section (N = 30) reported taking either no or very few (less than 5) prescribed opioid pills; 83% reported taking half or less; and 17% of women, reported taking all or nearly all (5 or fewer pills left over) of their opioid prescription. In a cohort of patients after thoracic surgery (n = 31) 45% reported taking either no or very few (5 or less) prescribed opioid pills; 71% reported taking half or less; and 29% of patients reported taking all or nearly all (5 or fewer pills left over) of their opioid prescription. In both cohorts, use of opioids while hospitalized was higher in the group reporting using about half or more of prescribed opioids after discharge. Leftover opioids were stored in an unlocked location in 77% and 73% of cases following C-section and thoracic surgery, respectively.


Conclusion 
Our findings from surveys in two distinct patient populations at a single academic medical center suggest that current opioid prescribing practices for pain management at hospital discharge following Cesarean section and thoracic surgery may not account for individual patients’ analgesic requirements. Excess opioid pills are commonly stored in unsecured locations and represent a potential source for non-medical opioid use and associated morbidity and mortality in patients and their families. Research to develop goal-directed and patient-centered post-discharge opioid prescription practices and encourage opioid safety practices after surgery is needed.

/pdf/opioid-use-and-storage-patterns-by-patients-after-hospital-4c9erswb9b.pdf

Opioid use and storage patterns by patients after hospital discharge following surgery

© 2015 Harborside Press® A variety of methodologic approaches exist for individuals interested in conducting research. Selection of a research approach depends on a number of factors, including the purpose of the research, the type of research questions to be answered, and the availability of resources. The purpose of this article is to describe survey research as one approach to the conduct of research so that the reader can critically evaluate the appropriateness of the conclusions from studies employing survey research.

/pdf/understanding-and-evaluating-survey-research-us6lmqm71w.pdf

Understanding and Evaluating Survey Research.

In surveys, individuals tend to misreport behaviors that are in contrast to prevalent social norms or regulations. Several design features of the survey procedure have been suggested to counteract this problem; particularly, computerized surveys are supposed to elicit more truthful responding. This assumption was tested in a meta-analysis of survey experiments reporting 460 effect sizes (total N =125,672). Self-reported prevalence rates of several sensitive behaviors for which motivated misreporting has been frequently observed were compared across self-administered paper-and-pencil versus computerized surveys. The results revealed that computerized surveys led to significantly more reporting of socially undesirable behaviors than comparable surveys administered on paper. This effect was strongest for highly sensitive behaviors and surveys administered individually to respondents. Moderator analyses did not identify interviewer effects or benefits of audio-enhanced computer surveys. The meta-analysis highlighted the advantages of computerized survey modes for the assessment of sensitive topics.

/pdf/disclosure-of-sensitive-behaviors-across-self-administered-3wyzbi1sz4.pdf

Disclosure of sensitive behaviors across self-administered survey modes: a meta-analysis

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . ii Executive Summary  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . ES-1 1 . Background  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 1 1 .1 Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 2 2 . Instrument Development and Testing  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5 2 .1 Instrument Development  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 6 2 .2 Cognitive Testing  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12 2 .2 .1 Crowdsourcing  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12 2 .2 .2 In-Person Cognitive Interviewing  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 15 2 .3 Final CCSVS Instrument  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 20 2 .4 Instrument Programming and Testing .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 22 3 . Pilot Test Sample Selection and Data Collection Methodology  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 24 3 .1 School Recruitment  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 24 3 .1 .1 Eligible Schools  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 24 3 .1 .2 Recruitment  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 26 3 .2 Student Sampling  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 27 3 .2 .1 Developing the Sampling Frames  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 27 3 .2 .2 Determining CCSVS Pilot Test Sample Sizes  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 28 3 .2 .3 Selection of Student Samples  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 30 3 .3 Data Collection  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 31 3 .3 .1 Materials  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 31 3 .3 .2 Recruitment Procedures and Data Collection Schedule  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 34 4 . Pilot Test Data Assessment and Weighting  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 36 4 .1 Completed Surveys  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 36 4 .1 .1 Sample Yield  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 36 4 .1 .2 Completed Surveys by Time in the Field  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 38 4 .1 .3 Completed Surveys by Type of Device  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 40 4 .2 Data Cleaning and Adjustments  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 41 4 .2 .1 Assessment of Item Nonresponse  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 41 4 .2 .2 Missing Data for Key Derived Variables  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 42 4 .2 .3 Breakoff Rates  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 45 4 .2 .4 Response Rates  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 47 4 .2 .5 Nonresponse Bias  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 48 4 .2 .6 Weighting Approach  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 51 4 .2 .7 Timing  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 56 4 .3 Study Sample  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 58 Campus Climate Survey Validation Study iv 5 . Sexual Assault, Rape, and Sexual Battery  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 62 5 .1 Measurement  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 63 5 .2 Prevalence Estimates  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 69 5 .2 .1 Prevalence of Sexual Assault during the 2014–2015 Academic Year  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 69 5 .2 .2 Prevalence of Sexual Assault since Entering College and in Lifetime  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 72 5 .2 .3 Prevalence of Female Sexual Assault during Academic Year 2014–2015, by Key Population Subgroups  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 74 5 .2 .4 Impact of Weighting on Female Sexual Assault Prevalence Estimates  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 79 5 .2 .5 Alternative Methods for Estimating Sexual Assault Prevalence  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 80 5 .3 Victimization Estimates  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 84 5 .3 .1 Number of Sexual Assault Incidents in the 2014–2015 Academic Year  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 84 5 .3 .2 Sexual Assault Incidence Rates (Academic Year 2014–2015)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 86 5 .4 Characteristics of Female Sexual Assault Incidents  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 89 5 .4 .1 Classification and Distribution of Sexual Assault Type  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 89 5 .4 .2 Distribution of Type of Penetration  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 91 5 .4 .3 Type of Tactic  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 

Campus Climate Survey Validation Study Final Technical Report

Resena de la obra de Don A. Dillman, Jolene D. Smyth y Leah Melani Christian: Internet, Phone, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys. The Tailored Design Method. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/7287796.pdf

Vidal Díaz de Rada Igúzquiza

Papers

Internet, phone, mail and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method: reseña