ArticleThe patient2011
Elicitation of ostomy pouch preferences: a discrete-choice experiment.
Article in The patient, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Treatment Preferences for Acute Allergic Reactions: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2024Article
- Linear Fitted-Q Iteration with Multiple Reward Functions.Journal of machine learning research : JMLR · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies about patients who have undergone ostomy surgery commonly address the issues of the surgery, complications, preoperative counseling, quality of life, and psychosocial changes following surgery. Only a limited number of studies deal with how technical improvements in stoma care would affect patients and, to the author's knowledge, the present study is the first to elicit preferences for potential improvements in ostomy pouches in the form of monetary values.
objectiveThis article examines and measures Swedish patients' preferences for potential improvements in ostomy pouch attributes. The theory, study design, elicitation procedure, and resulting preference structure of the sample is described.
methodsA discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was used to elicit preferences. Respondents were asked to choose between alternatives in choice sets, in which each alternative comprised a number of attributes relating to the adhesive, filter, and flexibility of ostomy pouches. The choices between alternatives made by the respondent imply a trade-off between the attributes and allow for the estimation of individuals' willingness to pay (WTP) for the attributes of ostomy pouches when cost is included as an attribute. A total of 254 patients responded to the survey and preferences were estimated using a random parameter logit econometric specification.
resultsRespondents had significantly positive WTP for all potential attribute improvements presented in the survey, with the strongest preference for reducing the number of leakages; flexibility of the system weighted second, and filter lifetime was the least important.
conclusionThe results confirm that the potential attribute improvements presented to the respondents in this study significantly and positively affect the utility that patients would obtain from a potential improvement in their ostomy pouch. This provides information as to how treatment options in terms of stoma management can be structured so as to maximize the benefits for patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.