ArticleBMC health services research2014
Prioritising health service innovation investments using public preferences: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 7 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic Review of the Relative Social Value of Child and Adult Health.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Pooled it
- Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Pooled it
- Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2018Pooled it
- Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Pooled it
- Application of discrete choice experiments to enhance stakeholder engagement as a strategy for advancing implementation: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2017Pooled it
- Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Pooled it
- Measuring Public Preferences for Health Outcomes and Expenditures in a Context of Healthcare Resource Re-Allocation.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Trial
- Public perceptions of high-cost cancer drugs and the implications for reimbursement decisions.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Exploring patient treatment decision making for osteoarthritis in the UAE: a cross-sectional adaptive choice-based conjoint study.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Societal Preferences for Meningococcal B Vaccination in Children: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Spain.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2023Article
- People's preferences for self-management support.Health services research · 2022Article
- What Aspects of Illness Influence Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment in the UK.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Article
- Public preferences for delayed or immediate antibiotic prescriptions in UK primary care: A choice experiment.PLoS medicine · 2021Article
- Prioritizing guideline recommendations for implementation: a systematic, consumer-inclusive process with a case study using the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Preferences for Renal Cell Carcinoma Pharmacological Treatment: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Patients and Oncologists.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Delayed Antibiotic Prescription by General Practitioners in the UK: A Stated-Choice Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Factors influencing patients' preferences for their treating physician.Saudi medical journal · 2020Article
- Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands.PloS one · 2020Article
- Using discrete choice model to elicit preference for health-care priority setting.Journal of education and health promotion · 2019Article
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
backgroundPrioritising scarce resources for investment in innovation by publically funded health systems is unavoidable. Many healthcare systems wish to foster transparency and accountability in the decisions they make by incorporating the public in decision-making processes. This paper presents a unique conceptual approach exploring the public's preferences for health service innovations by viewing healthcare innovations as 'bundles' of characteristics. This decompositional approach allows policy-makers to compare numerous competing health service innovations without repeatedly administering surveys for specific innovation choices.
methodsA Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) was used to elicit preferences. Individuals chose from presented innovation options that they believe the UK National Health Service (NHS) should invest the most in. Innovations differed according to: (i) target population; (ii) target age; (iii) implementation time; (iv) uncertainty associated with their likely effects; (v) potential health benefits; and, (vi) cost to a taxpayer. This approach fosters multidimensional decision-making, rather than imposing a single decision criterion (e.g., cost, target age) in prioritisation. Choice data was then analysed using scale-adjusted Latent Class models to investigate variability in preferences and scale and valuations amongst respondents.
resultsThree latent classes with considerable heterogeneity in the preferences were present. Each latent class is composed of two consumer subgroups varying in the level of certainty in their choices. All groups preferred scientifically proven innovations, those with potential health benefits that cost less. There were, however, some important differences in their preferences for innovation investment choices: Class-1 (54%) prefers innovations benefitting adults and young people and does not prefer innovations targeting people with 'drug addiction' and 'obesity'. Class- 2 (34%) prefers innovations targeting 'cancer' patients only and has negative preferences for innovations targeting elderly, and Class-3 (12%) prefers spending on elderly and cancer patients the most.
conclusionsDCE can help policy-makers incorporate public preferences for health service innovation investment choices into decision making. The findings provide useful information on the public's valuation and acceptability of potential health service innovations. Such information can be used to guide innovation prioritisation decisions by comparing competing innovation options. The approach in this paper makes, these often implicit and opaque decisions, more transparent and explicit.
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.