Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25005924›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2014

Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature.

Michael D Clark, Domino Determann, Stavros Petrou, Domenico Moro, Esther W de Bekker-Grob

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
413citing papers in PubMed, 17 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

413 citing papers in PubMed, 17 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. 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 · 2023
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. 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 · 2023
    Trial
  20. Trial

353 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

5 authors.

Michael D ClarkDepartment of Economics, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK, dce_consulting@hotmail.co.uk.
Domino Determann
Stavros Petrou
Domenico Moro
Esther W de Bekker-Grob

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Choice BehaviorDelivery of Health CarePatient PreferenceTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansModels, EconomicPolicy MakingResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnaires

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.