Trial reportPloS one2014
The effect of including an opt-out option in discrete choice experiments.
Trial report in PloS one, 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 110 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.
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
110 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Health state utility values of type 2 diabetes mellitus and related complications: a systematic review and meta-regression.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2024Pooled 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
- Eliciting preferences in glaucoma management-a systematic review of stated-preference studies.Eye (London, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Preferences of People Living with HIV for Long-Acting Antiretroviral Treatment in Germany: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2023Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis Studies in People with Multiple Sclerosis.The patient · 2018Pooled it
- Patients' preferences for primary health care - a systematic literature review of discrete choice experiments.BMC health services research · 2017Pooled it
- The Impact of Video-Based Educational Materials with Voiceovers on Preferences for Glucose Monitoring Technology in Patients with Diabetes: A Randomised Study.The patient · 2023Trial
- Benefit-Risk or Risk-Benefit Trade-Offs? Another Look at Attribute Ordering Effects in a Pilot Choice Experiment.The patient · 2021Trial
- The impact of health vs. non-health goals on individuals' lifestyle program choices: a discrete choice experiment approach.BMC public health · 2020Trial
- Stated and revealed preferences for HIV testing: can oral self-testing help to increase uptake amongst truck drivers in Kenya?BMC public health · 2018Trial
- Caregiver Preferences for AI-Supported Telemedicine in Pediatric Palliative Care: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of palliative care · 2026Article
- Treatment Preferences for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Harbin, China: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Patients, Caregivers, and Hematologists.The patient · 2026Article
- Treatment Preferences in Acute Allergic Reactions-How Can the Context Impact the Preference for a Corticosteroid Mouth Film Versus Conventional Tablets?Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Preferences of Women for Maternal Health Services in Sidama Region, Ethiopia: Discrete Choice Experiment.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Valuing health and wellbeing using discrete choice experiment: exploring feasibility, design effect and international preference similarity.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Patient Preferences for Dementia Interventions: A Scoping Review With a Systematic Review of Medications and Choice-Based Methods.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Article
- Patient, Physician, and Caregiver Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Time preferences and COVID-19 vaccination uptake.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Health equity through health literacy: validating HLSBMC public health · 2026Article
50 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
objectiveto determine to what extent the inclusion of an opt-out option in a DCE may have an effect on choice behaviour and therefore might influence the attribute level estimates, the relative importance of the attributes and calculated trade-offs.
methods781 Dutch Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus patients completed a questionnaire containing nine choice tasks with an opt-out option and nice forced choice tasks. Mixed-logit models were used to estimate the relative importance of the five lifestyle program related attributes that were included. Willingness to pay (WTP) values were calculated and it was tested whether results differed between respondents who answered the choice tasks with an opt-out option in the first or second part of the questionnaire.
results21.4% of the respondents always opted out. Respondents who were given the opt-out option in the first part of the questionnaire as well as lower educated respondents significantly more often opted out. For both the forced and unforced choice model, different attributes showed significant estimates, the relative importance of the attributes was equal. However, due to differences in relative importance weights, the WTP values for the PA schedule differed significantly between both datasets.
conclusionsResults show differences in opting out based on the location of the opt-out option and respondents' educational level; this resulted in small differences between the forced and unforced choice model. Since respondents seem to learn from answering forced choice tasks, a dual response design might result in higher data quality compared to offering a direct opt-out option. Future research should empirically explore how choice sets should be presented to make them as easy and less complex as possible in order to reduce the proportion of respondents that opts-out due to choice task complexity. Moreover, future research should debrief respondents to examine the reasons for choosing the opt-out alternative.
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.