ArticleBMJ open2018
Public preferences for interventions to prevent emerging infectious disease threats: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Treatment preferences among people at risk of developing tuberculosis: A discrete choice experiment.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- 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
- Public acceptability of non-pharmaceutical interventions to control a pandemic in the UK: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Incorrect Use of Protective Equipment against COVID-19 can cause more Inconvenience, a Questionnaire-Based Study of 7000 Participants.International journal of preventive medicine · 2022Article
- How Much Money Should be Paid for a Patient to Isolate During the COVID-19 Outbreak? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Iran.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Article
- Public opinion on health care and public health.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Feasibility of large-scale population testing for SARS-CoV-2 detection by self-testing at home.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Public Preferences for Government Response Policies on Outbreak Control.The patient · 2021Article
- Factors Affecting Voluntary Self-Isolation Behavior to Cope with a Pandemic: Empirical Evidence from Colombia vs. Spain in Times of COVID-19.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
- Lessons learnt from easing COVID-19 restrictions: an analysis of countries and regions in Asia Pacific and Europe.Lancet (London, England) · 2020Review
- Willingness to Self-Isolate When Facing a Pandemic Risk: Model, Empirical Test, and Policy Recommendations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Inferring who-infected-whom-where in the 2016 Zika outbreak in Singapore-a spatio-temporal model.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWhen faced with an emergent epidemic with high mortality and morbidity potential, policy makers must decide what public health interventions to deploy at different stages of the outbreak. However, almost nothing is known about how the public view these interventions or how they trade off risks (of disease) with inconvenience (of interventions). In this paper, we aim to understand public perceptions on pandemic interventions, as well as to identify if there are any distinct respondent preference classes.
designA discrete choice experiment.
settingThis study was fielded in Singapore between November 2012 and February 2013.
participantsA random sample of 500 Singapore residents aged 21 and over, including 271 women and 229 men, was analysed. OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic information was collected from each participant. Participants were also shown a series of pairs of alternatives, each combining interventions and morbidity, mortality and cost outcomes and declared a preference for one combination. A random utility model was developed to determine the individual's preference for interventions and a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to identify distinct respondent preference classes.
resultsOn average, participants preferred more intense interventions, and preferred scenarios with fewer deaths and lower tax. The number of infections did not significantly influence respondents' responses. We identified two broad classes of respondents: those who were mortality averse and those who were expenditure averse. Education was found to be a predictor of group membership.
conclusionOverall, there was considerable support for government interventions to prevent or mitigate outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases, including those that greatly restricted individual liberties, as long as the restrictions showed a reasonable chance of reducing the adverse health effects of the outbreak.
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.