Inconsistency checking
| Definitions/criteria of inconsistencies | Explanations and examples |
|---|---|
| (1) Participants anticipate that the regret score is higher when delay in need for THA is longer than it is at their threshold of delay time | In the example we give that measures anticipated regret scores: we set the 5 time points as A (12 months), B (1.5 years), C (2 years), D (3 years) and E (4 years). The participant chose 2 years as the shortest delay time at which he/she can accept for processing HA. Then they placed scores 60 to represent their regret on VAS at 12 months but scores 90 to represent his/her regret at 1.5 years. In other words, the regret scores ‘r’ on VAS show: rA<rB OR rB<rC OR rC<rD OR rD<rE |
| (2) Participants anticipate substantial regret, although HA would delay THA longer than their threshold of delay time | We define substantial as the anticipated regret score on VAS at the time point that they chose in the ‘trade-off’ exercise, or any longer delay time point is bigger than (30) on the 100 VAS scale The participant chose 2 years as the shortest delay time at which they can accept for processing HA. Then they still placed scores 60 to represent their regret on VAS at 2, 3 or 4 years In other words, the regret scores ‘r’ on VAS show: rC>0 OR rD>0 OR rE>0 |
| (iii) Patients do not anticipate any regret when delay in THA ends up being shorter than what their threshold of delay time | Compared to the time point that participants chose in the ‘trade-off’ exercise, the anticipated regret score on VAS at any shorter delay time point is equal to (0) For example, the participant chose 2 years as the shortest delay time at which they can accept for processing HA. Then they place scores 0 to represent their regret on VAS at 12 months and 1.5 years In other words, the regret scores ‘r’ on VAS show: rA=0 OR rB=0 |
HA, hip arthroscopy; THA, total hip arthroplasty; VAS, visual analogue scale.