SynthesisThe patient2018
A Systematic Review Comparing the Acceptability, Validity and Concordance of Discrete Choice Experiments and Best-Worst Scaling for Eliciting Preferences in Healthcare.
Synthesis in The patient, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Eliciting Patient-Centric Value Parameters: A National Best-Worst Scaling Profile Case Survey for Second-Line Antidiabetic Drugs in China.The patient · 2026Article
- Is best-worst scaling suitable for patient preference elicitation? A nationwide representative comparison with discrete choice experiments among patients with type 2 diabetes in China.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Putting the Choice in Choice Tasks: Incorporating Preference Elicitation Tasks in Health Preference Research.The patient · 2025Article
- Patient and physician preferences for cancer panel testing in Japan: a best-worst scaling study.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- Discrete Choice Experiment Versus Best-Worst Scaling: An Empirical Comparison in Eliciting Young People's Preferences for Web-Based Mental Health Interventions.The patient · 2025Article
- COVID-19 Vaccine Preferences in China: A Comparison of Discrete Choice Experiment and Profile Case Best-Worst Scaling.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2025Article
- An Empirical Comparison of Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling to Estimate Patient Preferences in Infertility Treatment in China.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Evaluating Preferences of Hospitalized Diabetes Patients for Hospital-Wide Glycemic Control Programme: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of diabetes research · 2024Article
- Comparing the Self-Reported Acceptability of Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling: An Empirical Study in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Increasing Access to Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder in Primary Care: an Assessment of Provider Incentives.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Best-Worst Scaling Survey of Inpatients' Preferences in Medical Decision-Making Participation in China.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Population preferences for non-pharmaceutical interventions to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: trade-offs among public health, individual rights, and economics.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022Article
- Article
- What Are the Important Factors Influencing the Recruitment and Retention of Doctoral Students in a Public Health Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment Survey in China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Community stakeholder preferences for evidence-based practice implementation strategies in behavioral health: a best-worst scaling choice experiment.BMC psychiatry · 2021Article
- Preferences for life expectancy discussions following diagnosis with a life-threatening illness: a discrete choice experiment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Health versus other sectors: Multisectoral resource allocation preferences in Mukono district, Uganda.PloS one · 2020Article
- Stated-preference research in HIV: A scoping review.PloS one · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the acceptability, validity and concordance of discrete choice experiment (DCE) and best-worst scaling (BWS) stated preference approaches in health.
methodsA systematic search of EMBASE, Medline, AMED, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and EconLit databases was undertaken in October to December 2016 without date restriction. Studies were included if they were published in English, presented empirical data related to the administration or findings of traditional format DCE and object-, profile- or multiprofile-case BWS, and were related to health. Study quality was assessed using the PREFS checklist.
resultsFourteen articles describing 12 studies were included, comparing DCE with profile-case BWS (9 studies), DCE and multiprofile-case BWS (1 study), and profile- and multiprofile-case BWS (2 studies). Although limited and inconsistent, the balance of evidence suggests that preferences derived from DCE and profile-case BWS may not be concordant, regardless of the decision context. Preferences estimated from DCE and multiprofile-case BWS may be concordant (single study). Profile- and multiprofile-case BWS appear more statistically efficient than DCE, but no evidence is available to suggest they have a greater response efficiency. Little evidence suggests superior validity for one format over another. Participant acceptability may favour DCE, which had a lower self-reported task difficulty and was preferred over profile-case BWS in a priority setting but not necessarily in other decision contexts.
conclusionDCE and profile-case BWS may be of equal validity but give different preference estimates regardless of the health context; thus, they may be measuring different constructs. Therefore, choice between methods is likely to be based on normative considerations related to coherence with theoretical frameworks and on pragmatic considerations related to ease of data collection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29177797What 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.