SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2014
Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2014. 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 413 papers, 17 of them syntheses 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.
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
Who cites it
413 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Understanding Patient Preferences for Medication Process Attributes: A Systematic Literature Review.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- Preferences for Internet Plus Nursing Services Among Nurses and Patients in China: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Journal of nursing management · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Preferences for Telephone Cancer Information and Support in People with Cancer and Carers: Attribute and Level Selection for a Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- Analyzing research trends and developments in osseointegration in patients with extremity amputations: Systematic bibliometric analysis and research recommendations.Prosthetics and orthotics international · 2025Pooled it
- The Burden of Informal Caregiving for Adults with Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Virtual Service Delivery in Mental Health and Substance Use Care: A Systematic Review of Preference Elicitation Studies.Community mental health journal · 2025Pooled it
- Stated Preferences of At-Risk Populations for the Treatment of Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2024Pooled it
- Differences in Preferences for Drug Therapy Between Patients with Metastatic Versus Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.The patient · 2024Pooled it
- Eliciting preferences in glaucoma management-a systematic review of stated-preference studies.Eye (London, England) · 2023Pooled it
- The application of discrete choice experiments eliciting young peoples' preferences for healthcare: a systematic literature review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health State Valuation: A Systematic Review of Progress and New Trends.Applied health economics and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- Conjoint analyses of patients' preferences for primary care: a systematic review.BMC primary care · 2022Pooled it
- Best-Worst Scaling and the Prioritization of Objects in Health: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- A Systematic and Critical Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.The patient · 2022Pooled it
- Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling: An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment.The patient · 2023Trial
- Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Trial
- Trial
353 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health economics to address a wide range of health policy-related concerns.
objectiveBroadly adopting the methodology of an earlier systematic review of health-related DCEs, which covered the period 2001-2008, we report whether earlier trends continued during 2009-2012.
methodsThis paper systematically reviews health-related DCEs published between 2009 and 2012, using the same database as the earlier published review (PubMed) to obtain citations, and the same range of search terms.
resultsA total of 179 health-related DCEs for 2009-2012 met the inclusion criteria for the review. We found a continuing trend towards conducting DCEs across a broader range of countries. However, the trend towards including fewer attributes was reversed, whilst the trend towards interview-based DCEs reversed because of increased computer administration. The trend towards using more flexible econometric models, including mixed logit and latent class, has also continued. Reporting of monetary values has fallen compared with earlier periods, but the proportion of studies estimating trade-offs between health outcomes and experience factors, or valuing outcomes in terms of utility scores, has increased, although use of odds ratios and probabilities has declined. The reassuring trend towards the use of more flexible and appropriate DCE designs and econometric methods has been reinforced by the increased use of qualitative methods to inform DCE processes and results. However, qualitative research methods are being used less often to inform attribute selection, which may make DCEs more susceptible to omitted variable bias if the decision framework is not known prior to the research project.
conclusionsThe use of DCEs in healthcare continues to grow dramatically, as does the scope of applications across an expanding range of countries. There is increasing evidence that more sophisticated approaches to DCE design and analytical techniques are improving the quality of final outputs. That said, recent evidence that the use of qualitative methods to inform attribute selection has declined is of concern.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25005924What 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.