SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2018
Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.
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.
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
81 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of latent class analysis in psychology: Examining the gap between guidelines and research practice.Behavior research methods · 2025Pooled it
- Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- Best-Worst Scaling and the Prioritization of Objects in Health: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- Using discrete choice experiments to develop and deliver patient-centered psychological interventions: a systematic review.Health psychology review · 2021Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review.The patient · 2018Pooled it
- Defining person-centred treatment support for multidrug-resistant TB: a discrete choice experiment.IJTLD open · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Integrated intraoperative strategies to prevent anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection: The roles of left colic artery preservation, reinforcement suturing, and transanal tube placement.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Patient, Physician, and Caregiver Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Multimorbidity patterns are associated with postoperative delirium in older patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: an observational study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Monetary Risk Preferences and Demand for Preventative Treatment: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Individuals at High Risk for Lung Cancer.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Training needs and influencing factors among rural-oriented general practitioners in Chongqing, China: a cross-sectional survey and latent profile analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Patient Preferences for Treatment in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Leukemia: A Multinational Discrete Choice Experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Periodontitis Phenotypes and Treatment Outcomes Following Combined Periodontal and Orthodontic Therapy: A Cohort Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Article
- Designing age-friendly interfaces and wearable-environment integrations to enhance medication adherence: a discrete choice experiment among older adults.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Preferences for tongue swab-based versus sputum-based testing in the context of TB care: a best-worst scaling exercise in Vietnam and Zambia.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Guardians' preferences for pit and fissure sealing services in China: evidence from a discrete choice experiment.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Exploring User Behavior, Profiles, and Generation of Missed Reading Alerts in Long-Term Users of a Technology-Enabled Intervention for Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure in Public Primary Care Setting in Singapore: Longitudinal Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
21 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
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
28975582What 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.