Search

Background: For adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), they experience many challenges in dietary decision‐making. Thus, this study examined the perspective and experiences of adults with IBD in dietary decision‐making. Objective: This study aimed to explore the perception and consideration of people with IBD in their daily dietary decisions through monitoring, interpretation and action during the decision‐making process. Design: A qualitative study of individuals affected by IBD was conducted through semistructured interviews. Results: Twenty patients were recruited from four tertiary hospitals in Nanjing, China, and each participant completed a semistructured interview. The majority of participants reported on the process and experience of dietary decision‐making. Key themes were categorised into three stages: (1) assessing needs, preferences and food cues (monitor); (2) moving from experience to expertise (interpret) and (3) balancing expectations amidst limitations (act). The majority of participants reported that their decisions were shaped by assessing current disease status and food cues. Those interviewed with IBD were willing to make tradeoffs for bowel stability, but their decisions were also influenced by past dietary experiences and traditional Chinese beliefs. The lack of awareness of dietary guidelines was a significant barrier to healthy eating decisions. Positive or negative feelings accompanied dietary decisions. Conclusion: Although most people with IBD change their diet after diagnosis, the changes made are often inconsistent with existing dietary recommendations. Several factors can influence the dietary decision‐making process. This study will help assess the experiences of people with IBD in dietary decision‐making to encourage the formation of targeted dietary health and well‐being interventions. Knowledge of nutrition and diet should be provided in education and training programmes for IBD management. Patient or Public Contribution: The first three authors of this paper were the lead researchers in this study's design. These authors were mentored by patient researchers who also contributed to the manuscript, and the research process was co‐lead and directed by other patient participants and consultants. The results of this paper were directly obtained from patient participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has not been well controlled, and vaccination could be an effective way to prevent this pandemic. By accommodating attribute nonattendance (ANA) in a discrete choice experiment (DCE), this paper aimed to examine Chinese public preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for COVID‐19 vaccine attributes, especially the influence of ANA on the estimated results. Methods: A DCE was designed with four attributes: effectiveness, protection period, adverse reactions and price. A random parameter logit model with an error component (RPL‐EC) was used to analyse the heterogeneity of respondents' preferences for COVID‐19 vaccine attributes. Two equality constraint latent class (ECLC) models were used to consider the influence of ANA on the estimated results in which the ECLC‐homogeneity model considered only ANA and the ECLC‐heterogeneity model considered both ANA and preference heterogeneity. Results: Data from 1,576 samples were included in the analyses. Effectiveness had the highest relative importance, followed by adverse reactions and protection period, which were determined by the attributes and levels presented in this study. The ECLC‐heterogeneity model improved the goodness of fit of the model and obtained a lower probability of ANA. In the ECLC‐heterogeneity model, only a small number of respondents (29.09%) considered all attributes, and price was the most easily ignored attribute (64.23%). Compared with the RPL‐EC model, the ECLC‐homogeneity model obtained lower WTPs for COVID‐19 vaccine attributes, and the ECLC‐heterogeneity model obtained mixed WTP results. In the ECLC‐heterogeneity model, preference group 1 obtained higher WTPs, and preference groups 2 and 3 obtained lower WTPs. Conclusions: The RPL‐EC, ECLC‐homogeneity and ECLC‐heterogeneity models obtained inconsistent WTPs for COVID‐19 vaccine attributes. The study found that the results of the ECLC‐heterogeneity model considering both ANA and preference heterogeneity may be more plausible because ANA and low preference may be confused in the ECLC‐homogeneity model and the RPL‐EC model. The results showed that the probability of ANA was still high in the ECLC‐heterogeneity model, although it was lower than that in the ECLC‐homogeneity model. Therefore, in future research on DCE (such as the field of vaccines), ANA should be considered as an essential issue. Public Contribution: Chinese adults from 31 provinces in mainland China participated in the study. All participants completed the COVID‐19 vaccine choice questions generated through the DCE design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]