Comparison of Literature Review, Social Media Listening, and Qualitative Interview Research Methods in Generating Patient-Reported Symptom and Functional Impact Concepts of Presbyopia

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: To compare the insights obtained about the experience of individuals with presbyopia (age-related impaired near vision) across three different sources of qualitative data: a structured targeted literature review, a social media listening (SML) review, and qualitative concept elicitation (CE) interviews with individuals with presbyopia and healthcare professionals (HCPs). The number of concepts identified, depth of data, cost and time implications, and value of the patient insights generated were explored and compared for each method. METHODS: Keyword searches in bibliographic databases and review of abstracts identified 120 relevant publications; in-depth targeted literature review of the qualitative studies identified key symptoms/functioning concepts. SML was conducted using publicly accessible social media sources with focus on ophthalmologic diseases using a pre-defined search string. Relevant posts from individuals with presbyopia (n = 270) were analysed and key concepts identified. Semi-structured CE interviews were conducted with individuals with presbyopia (US n = 30, Germany n = 10, France n = 10), and HCPs (US = 3, France n = 2, Germany n = 1, Japan n = 1) who were experienced in treating presbyopia. Verbatim transcripts were coded using thematic analysis. A conceptual model summarised concepts identified across sources RESULTS: Out of the total of 158 concepts identified across the three sources, qualitative CE interviews yielded the highest number of concepts (n = 151/158, 96%), with SML yielding a third of the concepts (n = 51/158, 32%) and the literature review yielding the fewest concepts (n = 33/158, 21%). Qualitative CE interviews provided greater depth of data than SML and literature reviews. SML and literature reviews were less costly and quicker to run than qualitative CE interviews and also were less burdensome for participants. CONCLUSION: Qualitative CE interviews are considered the gold standard in providing greater depth of understanding of the patient experience, and more robust data. However, research requirements, budget, and available time should be considered when choosing the most appropriate research method. More time and cost-effective SML and literature review methods can be used to supplement qualitative CE interview data and provide early identification of measurement concepts. More research and regulatory guidance into less traditional qualitative methods, however, are needed to increase the value of SML and literature review data.