Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26743636›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2016

Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview.

Axel C Mühlbacher, Anika Kaczynski, Peter Zweifel, F Reed Johnson

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05146206 (Patient Satisfaction and Sensory Attributes of Nasal Spray Treatments for Allergic Rhinitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 102 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 7 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.

NCT05146206 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Patient Satisfaction and Sensory Attributes of Nasal Spray Treatments for Allergic Rhinitis

TypeobservationalSponsorCommunity and Patient Preference Research Pty LtdRan2021 to 2022Enrolled426ConditionsAllergic RhinitisArmsObservational
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

102 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. The Role of Qualitative Research Methods in Discrete Choice Experiments.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. What traits do urology programs value in elective students? A survey of Canadian selection committee members.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

42 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

4 authors.

Axel C MühlbacherIGM Institute for Health Economics and Health Care Management, Hochschule Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg, Germany. muehlbacher@hs-nb.de.
Anika KaczynskiIGM Institute for Health Economics and Health Care Management, Hochschule Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg, Germany. kaczynski@hs-nb.de.
Peter ZweifelDepartment of Economics, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. peter.zweifel@econ.uzh.ch.
F Reed JohnsonCenter for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, USA. reed.johnson@duke.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Best-worst scaling (BWS), also known as maximum-difference scaling, is a multiattribute approach to measuring preferences. BWS aims at the analysis of preferences regarding a set of attributes, their levels or alternatives. It is a stated-preference method based on the assumption that respondents are capable of making judgments regarding the best and the worst (or the most and least important, respectively) out of three or more elements of a choice-set. As is true of discrete choice experiments (DCE) generally, BWS avoids the known weaknesses of rating and ranking scales while holding the promise of generating additional information by making respondents choose twice, namely the best as well as the worst criteria. A systematic literature review found 53 BWS applications in health and healthcare. This article expounds possibilities of application, the underlying theoretical concepts and the implementation of BWS in its three variants: 'object case', 'profile case', 'multiprofile case'. This paper contains a survey of BWS methods and revolves around study design, experimental design, and data analysis. Moreover the article discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the three types of BWS distinguished and offered an outlook. A companion paper focuses on special issues of theory and statistical inference confronting BWS in preference measurement.

Indexed as

Best-worst scalingBWSExperimental measurementHealthcare decision makingPatient preferences

Identifiers

PMID26743636
PMCPMC4705077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.