SynthesisBMC health services research2014
The use of discrete choice experiments to inform health workforce policy: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 89 papers, 13 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
89 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Public Preferences for Genetic and Genomic Risk-Informed Chronic Disease Screening and Early Detection: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences of Cancer Survivors for Follow-Up Care: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analyses in Health Screening Programs for Type 2 Diabetes and Liver Disease: A Scoping Review.Canadian liver journal · 2025Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments to Elicit Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Pooled 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
- Vaccine preferences driving vaccine-decision making of different target groups: a systematic review of choice-based experiments.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018Pooled it
- Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Pooled it
- Individual Preferences for Child and Adolescent Vaccine Attributes: A Systematic Review of the Stated Preference Literature.The patient · 2017Pooled it
- How to attract and retain health workers in rural areas of a fragile state: Findings from a labour market survey in Guinea.PloS one · 2021Trial
- What drives family physicians to rural practice? A discrete choice experiment in Vietnam.Health policy OPEN · 2026Article
- Making nursing a better place: a discrete choice experiment to elicit the job preferences of early-career nurses in England.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Balancing the rota: registered nurses' preferences for shift patterns - a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Patient preferences for treatment attributes in osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review of stated preference studies.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Exploring tuberculosis physicians' preferences for AI explainability in China: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Stated preferences in the Iranian health system: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments and conjoint analysis.Health economics review · 2026Review
29 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiscrete choice experiments have become a popular study design to study the labour market preferences of health workers. Discrete choice experiments in health, however, have been criticised for lagging behind best practice and there are specific methodological considerations for those focused on job choices. We performed a systematic review of the application of discrete choice experiments to inform health workforce policy.
methodsWe searched for discrete choice experiments that examined the labour market preferences of health workers, including doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, mid-level and community health workers. We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, other databases and grey literature repositories with no limits on date or language and contacted 44 experts. Features of choice task and experimental design, conduct and analysis of included studies were assessed against best practice. An assessment of validity was undertaken for all studies, with a comparison of results from those with low risk of bias and a similar objective and context.
resultsTwenty-seven studies were included, with over half set in low- and middle-income countries. There were more studies published in the last four years than the previous ten years. Doctors or medical students were the most studied cadre. Studies frequently pooled results from heterogeneous subgroups or extrapolated these results to the general population. Only one third of studies included an opt-out option, despite all health workers having the option to exit the labour market. Just five studies combined results with cost data to assess the cost effectiveness of various policy options. Comparison of results from similar studies broadly showed the importance of bonus payments and postgraduate training opportunities and the unpopularity of time commitments for the uptake of rural posts.
conclusionsThis is the first systematic review of discrete choice experiments in human resources for health. We identified specific issues relating to this application of which practitioners should be aware to ensure robust results. In particular, there is a need for more defined target populations and increased synthesis with cost data. Research on a wider range of health workers and the generalisability of results would be welcome to better inform policy.
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.