Concept Mapping as a Scalable Method for Identifying Patient-Important Outcomes [Methods Study], Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2015-2020 (ICPSR 39640)
Version Date: Dec 16, 2025 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Kristin L. Rising, Thomas Jefferson University
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR39640.v1
Version V1
Summary View help for Summary
Research that focuses on what's most important to patients can inform health decisions. Researchers use different methods to identify what's most important to patients.
In this study, the research team compared two methods for identifying what's most important to patients: one-on-one interviews and group concept mapping, or GCM. GCM is a three-round process that helps researchers get input from a group. In the first round, people brainstorm topics that are important to them. Next, people sort the topics into clusters based on similar ideas. Finally, researchers create a map to display and discuss the topics. Researchers can use the complete GCM process or the brainstorming round only.
The research team looked at one-on-one interviews versus GCM and compared the number of topics patients named and the amount of time and money required.
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
To compare the comprehensiveness and efficiency of individual interviews and GCM for generating PIOs
Study Design View help for Study Design
This study compared the comprehensiveness and efficiency of data collection and analysis using individual interviews versus GCM for eliciting PIOs related to chronic disease management.
Researchers identified PIOs using interviews with 89 patients and three GCM iterations with 52 patients. All patients had moderately to poorly controlled type 1 or type 2 diabetes and sought care from one health system in Philadelphia.
To assess the comprehensiveness of PIOs, researchers consolidated PIOs across GCM iterations and across interviews and then compared the number of PIOs generated using each method. To assess efficiency, researchers kept an activity log that included cost and time required for each method.
Patients, patient advocates, and healthcare professionals provided feedback throughout the study.
Universe View help for Universe
Patients with moderately to poorly controlled type 1 or type 2 diabetes and sought care from one health system in Philadelphia.
Data Source View help for Data Source
Transcripts from 89 interviews and PIOs generated in 3 iterations of GCM with 52 patients
Notes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
ICPSR usually offers files in multiple formats for researchers to be able to access data and documentation in formats that work well within their needs. If you have questions about the accessibility of materials distributed by ICPSR or require further assistance, please visit ICPSR’s Accessibility Center.