Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27402349›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2016

Using Best-Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care.

Kei Long Cheung, Ben F M Wijnen, Ilene L Hollin, Ellen M Janssen, John F Bridges, Silvia M A A Evers, Mickael Hiligsmann

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 10 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

122 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. 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
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

62 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

7 authors.

Kei Long CheungDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Research School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. KL.Cheung@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-7648-4556
Ben F M WijnenDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Research School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Ilene L HollinDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ellen M JanssenDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
John F BridgesDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Silvia M A A EversDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Research School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Mickael HiligsmannDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Research School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBest-worst scaling (BWS) is becoming increasingly popular to elicit preferences in health care. However, little is known about current practice and trends in the use of BWS in health care. This study aimed to identify, review and critically appraise BWS in health care, and to identify trends over time in key aspects of BWS.

methodsA systematic review was conducted, using Medline (via Pubmed) and EMBASE to identify all English-language BWS studies published up until April 2016. Using a predefined extraction form, two reviewers independently selected articles and critically appraised the study quality, using the Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, Significance (PREFS) checklist. Trends over time periods (≤2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015) were assessed further.

resultsA total of 62 BWS studies were identified, of which 26 were BWS object case studies, 29 were BWS profile case studies and seven were BWS multi-profile case studies. About two thirds of the studies were performed in the last 2 years. Decreasing sample sizes and decreasing numbers of factors in BWS object case studies, as well as use of less complicated analytical methods, were observed in recent studies. The quality of the BWS studies was generally acceptable according to the PREFS checklist, except that most studies did not indicate whether the responders were similar to the non-responders.

conclusionUse of BWS object case and BWS profile case has drastically increased in health care, especially in the last 2 years. In contrast with previous discrete-choice experiment reviews, there is increasing use of less sophisticated analytical methods.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient PreferenceDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareHumansResearch DesignSample Size

Identifiers

PMID27402349
PMCPMC5110583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.