ArticleThe patient2015
Constant-sum paired comparisons for eliciting stated preferences: a tutorial.
Article in The patient, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of an Alzheimer's Disease Blood Test: Adoption Experience by Memory Care Specialists in a Multi-Center Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Making Choices: A Multi-institutional, Longitudinal Cohort Study Assessing Changes in Treatment Outcome Valuation for Low-risk Thyroid Cancer.Annals of surgery · 2025Article
- Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE): A New Preference-Elicitation Method for Decision Making in Healthcare.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Review
- Transcriptome and Metabolome Analysis Revealed the Freezing Resistance Mechanism in 60-Year-Old OverwinteringBiology · 2021Article
- Using discrete choice model to elicit preference for health-care priority setting.Journal of education and health promotion · 2019Article
- Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is growing recognition of the importance of formally including public preferences and values in societal decision-making processes. Constant-sum paired comparison (CSPC), sometimes known as a 'budget pie' task, is a stated preference method than can be used to elicit and measure these preferences and values. It requires respondents to allocate resources between two alternatives, and the relative allocation of this resource is assumed to reflect the importance or priority that respondents attach to the attribute levels in each alternative. CSPC is useful in addressing questions over preferences for the distribution of resources, and allows for an explicit linkage of budget constraints, opportunity costs, outcomes and group characteristics. A key property of CSPC is the ability to allocate some resources to the less preferred alternative, forcing respondents to reflect on the relative value of both alternatives, and possibly giving it an advantage in contexts such as healthcare where respondents may find it ethically difficult or objectionable to make all-or-nothing allocations. This tutorial will outline the theory underlying CSPC, and will work through a detailed example of administering and interpreting a CSPC elicitation, including defining attributes and levels, constructing experimental design, task presentation, and analysis and interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25038741What 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.