ArticleHealth economics review2016
What, who and when? Incorporating a discrete choice experiment into an economic evaluation.
Article in Health economics review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Pilot Economic Evaluation of a Nature-Based Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Austria.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Trial
- Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Trial
- Trial
- 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
- Is next generation sequencing for the diagnosis of rare diseases worth its cost? A user-based approach to valuation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- What methods are currently available for incorporating implementation considerations within the economic evaluation of health technologies? A scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Development of a disease-specific health utility score for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from a discrete choice experiment patient preference study.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Treatment Preferences for Acute Allergic Reactions: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2024Article
- People living with moderate-to-severe COPD prefer improvement of daily symptoms over the improvement of exacerbations: a multicountry patient preference study.ERJ open research · 2022Article
- Valuing infertility treatment: Why QALYs are inadequate, and an alternative approach to cost-effectiveness thresholds.Frontiers in medical technology · 2022Article
- How has implementation been incorporated in health technology assessments in the United Kingdom? A systematic rapid review.Health research policy and systems · 2021Review
- What matters when managing childhood fever in the emergency department? A discrete-choice experiment comparing the preferences of parents and healthcare professionals in the UK.Archives of disease in childhood · 2020Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to the Adoption of Mobile Health Among Health Care Professionals From the United Kingdom: Discrete Choice Experiment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Consumer Reactions toFrontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Employment preferences of obstetricians and gynecologists to work in the district hospitals: evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Nepal.Human resources for health · 2019Article
- Patient Preference Studies During Early Drug Development: Aligning Stakeholders to Ensure Development Plans Meet Patient Needs.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Article
- The Patient Perspectives on Future Therapeutic Options in NASH and Patient Needs.Frontiers in medicine · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEconomic evaluation focuses on Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALYs) as the main valuation method. However, it is well known that factors beyond health related quality of life are important to patients and the public. Whilst discrete-choice-experiments (DCE) have been extensively used to value such factors, their incorporation within an economic evaluation framework is limited. This study is the first to incorporate patient preferences for factors beyond QALYs into an economic evaluation and compare results with the standard cost-per-QALY approach, using randomised-controlled-trial (RCT) participants.
methodsCostings, clinical-effectiveness (appropriateness-of-treatment), QALYs and patient satisfaction data were collected at baseline and 12-month follow-up for a new pharmacy-service within a randomised-controlled-trial. Trial participants who replied to the follow-up survey and had not subsequently withdrawn from the study were mailed a DCE questionnaire at 24-months. WTP for the standard and new service was derived from the DCE. Results from QALYs and the DCE were compared.
resultsAt 12 months, costs, clinical-effectiveness and QALYs did not differ between the intervention and control; however there was a significant increase in satisfaction in the intervention. The DCE valued this increased satisfaction in the intervention (positive net-benefit). The longer the time patients experienced the new service the greater the reported net-benefit.
conclusionWhen incorporating a DCE into an economic evaluation a number of questions are raised: what factors should be valued, whose values (trial-groups vs. all-trial-population) and when should they be elicited (still-receiving-the-intervention or afterwards). Consideration should also be given to status quo bias.
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.