Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18620460›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2008

Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Emily Lancsar, Jordan Louviere

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05449561 (Beyond Efficacy- Eliciting Preference for Face-to-face and Internet-based Psychotherapy Among People with Depression), which is not on this map. Cited by 805 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
805citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05449561 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Beyond Efficacy- Eliciting Preference for Face-to-face and Internet-based Psychotherapy Among People with Depression: Using Discrete Choice Experiment to Advance Future Service Implementation

TypeobservationalSponsorChinese University of Hong KongRan2022 to 2023Enrolled20ConditionsDepression
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

805 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Ordinal relationship of composite time trade-off and discrete choice experiment preference data.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

745 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Emily LancsarBusiness School (Economics) and Institute of Health and Society, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Emily.Lancsar@ncl.ac.uk
Jordan Louviere

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are regularly used in health economics to elicit preferences for healthcare products and programmes. There is growing recognition that DCEs can provide more than information on preferences and, in particular, they have the potential to contribute more directly to outcome measurement for use in economic evaluation. Almost uniquely, DCEs could potentially contribute to outcome measurement for use in both cost-benefit and cost-utility analysis. Within this expanding remit, our intention is to provide a resource for current practitioners as well as those considering undertaking a DCE, using DCE results in a policy/commercial context, or reviewing a DCE. We present the fundamental principles and theory underlying DCEs. To aid in undertaking and assessing the quality of DCEs, we discuss the process of carrying out a choice study and have developed a checklist covering conceptualizing the choice process, selecting attributes and levels, experimental design, questionnaire design, pilot testing, sampling and sample size, data collection, coding of data, econometric analysis, validity, interpretation and welfare and policy analysis. In this fast-moving area, a number of issues remain on the research frontier. We therefore outline potentially fruitful areas for future research associated both with DCEs in general, and with health applications specifically, paying attention to how the results of DCEs can be used in economic evaluation. We also discuss emerging research trends. We conclude that if appropriately designed, implemented, analysed and interpreted, DCEs offer several advantages in the health sector, the most important of which is that they provide rich data sources for economic evaluation and decision making, allowing investigation of many types of questions, some of which otherwise would be intractable analytically. Thus, they offer viable alternatives and complements to existing methods of valuation and preference elicitation.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthChoice BehaviorHealth Services ResearchPolicy MakingConsumer BehaviorCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansModels, EconometricPatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.