Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28975582›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2018

Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.

Mo Zhou, Winter Maxwell Thayer, John F P Bridges

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing 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.

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

81 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. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Syringe Services Participants' Preferences for Wound Care, HIV/Hepatitis C Virus Screening, and Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

21 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

3 authors.

Mo ZhouDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 690, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. mzhou8@jhu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3538-7666
Winter Maxwell ThayerDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 690, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
John F P BridgesDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 690, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute ME-1303-5946
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLatent class analysis (LCA) has been increasingly used to explore preference heterogeneity, but the literature has not been systematically explored and hence best practices are not understood.

objectiveWe sought to document all applications of LCA in the stated-preference literature in health and to inform future studies by identifying current norms in published applications.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases. We included stated-preference studies that used LCA to explore preference heterogeneity in healthcare or public health. Two co-authors independently evaluated titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. Abstracted key outcomes included segmentation methods, preference elicitation methods, number of attributes and levels, sample size, model selection criteria, number of classes reported, and hypotheses tests. Study data quality and validity were assessed with the Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings, and Significance (PREFS) quality checklist.

resultsWe identified 2560 titles, 99 of which met the inclusion criteria for the review. Two-thirds of the studies focused on the preferences of patients and the general population. In total, 80% of the studies used discrete choice experiments. Studies used between three and 20 attributes, most commonly four to six. Sample size in LCAs ranged from 47 to 2068, with one-third between 100 and 300. Over 90% of the studies used latent class logit models for segmentation. Bayesian information criterion (BIC), Akaike information criterion (AIC), and log-likelihood (LL) were commonly used for model selection, and class size and interpretability were also considered in some studies. About 80% of studies reported two to three classes. The number of classes reported was not correlated with any study characteristics or study population characteristics (p > 0.05). Only 30% of the studies reported using statistical tests to detect significant variations in preferences between classes. Less than half of the studies reported that individual characteristics were included in the segmentation models, and 30% reported that post-estimation analyses were conducted to examine class characteristics. While a higher percentage of studies discussed clinical implications of the segmentation results, an increasing number of studies proposed policy recommendations based on segmentation results since 2010.

conclusionsLCA is increasingly used to study preference heterogeneity in health and support decision-making. However, there is little consensus on best practices as its application in health is relatively new. With an increasing demand to study preference heterogeneity, guidance is needed to improve the quality of applications of segmentation methods in health to support policy development and clinical practice.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalPatient PreferenceBayes TheoremDelivery of Health CareHumansLatent Class AnalysisLogistic ModelsPublic Health

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.