Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22273433›Full record

ArticleThe patient2010

Adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis: a new patient-centered approach to the assessment of health service preferences.

Charles E Cunningham, Ken Deal, Yvonne Chen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Classifying strategy use in multiattribute subjective choice: Application to conjoint experiments in political science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Optimizing military mental health and stress resilience training through the lens of trainee preferences: A conjoint analysis approach.Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Determining patient preferences for the medical management of osteoporosis using conjoint analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Charles E Cunningham1 McMaster Children's Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 2 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 3 Strategic Market Leadership and Health Services Management, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 4 Health Research Methodology, Department of Health Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Ken Deal
Yvonne Chen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conjoint analysis (CA) has emerged as an important approach to the assessment of health service preferences. This article examines Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis (ACBC) and reviews available evidence comparing ACBC with conventional approaches to CA. ACBC surveys more closely approximate the decision-making processes that influence real-world choices. Informants begin ACBC surveys by completing a build-your-own (BYO) task identifying the level of each attribute that they prefer. The ACBC software composes a series of attribute combinations clustering around each participant's BYO choices. During the Screener section, informants decide whether each of these concepts is a possibility or not. Probe questions determine whether attribute levels consistently included in or excluded from each informant's Screener section choices reflect 'Unacceptable' or 'Must Have' simplifying heuristics. Finally, concepts identified as possibilities during the Screener section are carried forward to a Choice Tournament. The winning concept in each Choice Tournament set advances to the next choice set until a winner is determined.A review of randomized trials and cross-over studies suggests that, although ACBC surveys require more time than conventional approaches to CA, informants find ACBC surveys more engaging. In most studies, ACBC surveys yield lower standard errors, improved prediction of hold-out task choices, and better estimates of real-world product decisions than conventional choice-based CA surveys.

Identifiers

PMID22273433
PMCPMC3580138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.