CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Celiac Disease Research and ManagementHealthcare Quality and ManagementDietetics, Nutrition, and Education

Application of Conjoint Analysis to Improve Reliability of Dietician Consultation in Pediatric Celiac Disease

Open access
Kulkarni, Sakil, Liss, Kim, Samson, Charles M.·2017·Pediatric Quality & Safety
DOI 10.1097/pq9.0000000000000029PMC PMC6132477
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction: Celiac disease (CD) management involves lifelong adherence to a gluten-free diet, making the dietician a key member in CD care. However, our institution lacked a standardized process for dietary consultation in newly diagnosed CD. Methods: To understand provider CD care preferences, a 2 4-1 fractional factorial conjoint analysis was performed. Attributes studied (2 levels each) included type of initial follow-up gastroenterology (GI) provider, interval from diagnosis to follow-up, concurrence of initial dietary consultation with gastroenterology visit, and on-going follow-up GI provider. CD care was standardized in July 2014 to facilitate concurrent visits with the clinician and dietician during the same clinical session. Changes to mean time of dietary consultation and reliability of dietary consultation were monitored using an individual-control and G-control chart, respectively. Standard control chart rules were followed. Results: Conjoint analysis identified shorter time to initial follow-up visit and concurrent GI/dietician visits as more important attributes in newly diagnosed CD subjects’ care. Types of follow-up provider during first or subsequent visits were identified as less important attributes. After initiation of a standardized follow-up process, a special cause was identified in December 2015 with a decrease in the mean time to dietary consultation from 30 to 20 days. In addition, standardized follow-up resulted in a more reliable process as evident by a special cause on the G-control chart in February 2015. Conclusion: Conjoint analysis identified attributes thought to be important in CD follow-up care. After redesign of our care process, a decrease in time to dietary consultation with improved reliability was observed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/pq9.0000000000000029

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. [1]Hill ID Dirks MH Liptak GS; North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of celiac disease in children: recommendations of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2005; 40: 1 19. 15625418
  2. [2]Husby S Koletzko S Korponay-Szabó IR; ESPGHAN Working Group on Coeliac Disease Diagnosis; ESPGHAN Gastroenterology Committee; European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition. European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition guidelines for the diagnosis of coeliac disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2012; 54: 136 160. 22197856
  3. [3]Snyder J Butzner JD DeFelice AR Evidence-informed expert recommendations for the management of celiac disease in children. Pediatrics. 2016; 138: e20153147. 27565547
  4. [4]Jadresin O Misak Z Sanja K Compliance with gluten-free diet in children with coeliac disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2008; 47: 344 348. 18728532
  5. [6]Murch S Jenkins H Auth M; BSPGHAN. Joint BSPGHAN and Coeliac UK guidelines for the diagnosis and management of coeliac disease in children. Arch Dis Child. 2013; 98: 806 811. 23986560
  6. [7]Mele NL Conjoint analysis: using a market-based research model for healthcare decision making. Nurs Res. 2008; 57: 220 224. 18496108
  7. [8]Bridges JF Kinter ET Kidane L Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982-2007. Patient. 2008; 1: 273 282. 22272995
  8. [9]Taylor WJ Pros and cons of conjoint analysis of discrete choice experiments to define classification and response criteria in rheumatology. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2016; 28: 117 121. 26780423
  9. [10]Bridges JF Hauber AB Marshall D Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011; 14: 403 413. 21669364
  10. [11]Moen RD Nolan TW Provost LP Quality Improvement through Planned Experimentation. 2012 3rd ed New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
  11. [12]Ryan M McIntosh E Shackley P Using conjoint analysis to elicit the views of health service users: an application to the patient health card. Health Expect. 1998; 1: 117 129. 11281866 PMC5139899
  12. [13]Ludvigsson JF Pathak J Murphy S Use of computerized algorithm to identify individuals in need of testing for celiac disease. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; 20(e2): e306 e310. 23956016 PMC3861918
  13. [14]Nelson FE Hart MK Hart RF Application of control chart statistics to blood pressure measurement variability in the primary care setting. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 1994; 6: 17 28. 8003351
  14. [15]Benneyan JC Number-between g-type statistical quality control charts for monitoring adverse events. Health Care Manag Sci. 2001; 4: 305 318. 11718462
  15. [16]Nelson LS Technical aids: the Shewart control chart—tests for special causes. J Qual Technol. 1984; 16(4): 237 239.
  16. [17]Alriksson S Oberg T Conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation—a review of methods and applications. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2008; 15: 244 257. 18504844
  17. [18]Mertens L Van Cauwenberg J Ghekiere A Does the effect of micro-environmental factors on a street’s appeal for adults’ bicycle transport vary across different macro-environments? An experimental study. PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0136715. 26317754 PMC4552783
  18. [19]Kagnoff M AGA Institute Medical Position Statement on the diagnosis and management of celiac disease. Gastroenterology. 2006; 131(6): 1977 1980. 17087935 PMC2842922
  19. [20]Kupper C Dietary guidelines and implementation for celiac disease. Gastroenterology. 2005; 128(4 Suppl 1): S121 S127. 15825119
  20. [21]Lavelle J Schast A Keren R Standardizing care processes and improving quality using pathways and continuous quality improvement. Curr Treat Options Peds. 2015; 1(4): 347 358.
  21. [22]Clemmer TP Spuhler VJ Oniki TA Results of a collaborative quality improvement program on outcomes and costs in a tertiary critical care unit. Crit Care Med. 1999; 27: 1768 1774. 10507596
  22. [23]Fleming BB Greenfield S Engelgau MM The diabetes quality improvement project: moving science into health policy to gain an edge on the diabetes epidemic. Diabetes Care. 2001; 24: 1815 1820. 11574448

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kulkarni, S., Liss, K., & Samson, C. M.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Samson, Charles M.
ORCID
Venue
Pediatric Quality & Safety
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2017-07
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
e029
ISSN
2472-0054 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/pq9.0000000000000029
PMC
PMC6132477
OpenAlex
W2949535689
Cited by
1
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Pediatric Quality and Safety (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Celiac Disease Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Keywords
pediatric celiac disease, gluten-free diet, care process redesign, process reliability, special cause variation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review