SynthesisThe patient2018
Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review.
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 18 papers, 3 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Preferences for AI-Enabled Health Care Technologies: Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Reporting Quality Assessment Using the DIRECT Checklist.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- 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
- Physician Preferences for Universal Routine Depression Screening for Adolescents in Primary Care.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- A Break from the Norm? Parametric Representations of Preference Heterogeneity for Discrete Choice Models in Health.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- What Can Discrete-Choice Experiments Tell Us about Patient Preferences? An Introduction to Quantitative Analysis of Choice Data.The patient · 2025Article
- Musculoskeletal patients' preferences for care from physiotherapists or support workers: a discrete choice experiment.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Pretesting Discrete-Choice Experiments: A Guide for Researchers.The patient · 2024Article
- Discrete choice experiment to investigate preferences for psychological intervention in cardiac rehabilitation.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Towards Personalising the Use of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2022Article
- Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment: Do Adult and Adolescent Preferences Differ?Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
- Empirical Investigation of Ranking vs Best-Worst Scaling Generated Preferences for Attributes of Quality of Life: One and the Same or Differentiable?The patient · 2020Article
- Examining Generalizability of Older Adults' Preferences for Discussing Cessation of Screening Colonoscopies in Older Adults with Low Health Literacy.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data.Journal of health economics · 2019Article
- Key Issues and Potential Solutions for Understanding Healthcare Preference Heterogeneity Free from Patient-Level Scale Confounds.The patient · 2018Article
- An Exploratory Application of Eye-Tracking Methods in a Discrete Choice Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018Article
- Understanding the Impact of Different Modes of Information Provision on Preferences for a Newborn Bloodspot Screening Program in the United Kingdom.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScale heterogeneity, or differences in the error variance of choices, may account for a significant amount of the observed variation in the results of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) when comparing preferences between different groups of respondents.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to identify if, and how, scale heterogeneity has been addressed in healthcare DCEs that compare the preferences of different groups.
methodsA systematic review identified all healthcare DCEs published between 1990 and February 2016. The full-text of each DCE was then screened to identify studies that compared preferences using data generated from multiple groups. Data were extracted and tabulated on year of publication, samples compared, tests for scale heterogeneity, and analytical methods to account for scale heterogeneity. Narrative analysis was used to describe if, and how, scale heterogeneity was accounted for when preferences were compared.
resultsA total of 626 healthcare DCEs were identified. Of these 199 (32%) aimed to compare the preferences of different groups specified at the design stage, while 79 (13%) compared the preferences of groups identified at the analysis stage. Of the 278 included papers, 49 (18%) discussed potential scale issues, 18 (7%) used a formal method of analysis to account for scale between groups, and 2 (1%) accounted for scale differences between preference groups at the analysis stage. Scale heterogeneity was present in 65% (n = 13) of studies that tested for it. Analytical methods to test for scale heterogeneity included coefficient plots (n = 5, 2%), heteroscedastic conditional logit models (n = 6, 2%), Swait and Louviere tests (n = 4, 1%), generalised multinomial logit models (n = 5, 2%), and scale-adjusted latent class analysis (n = 2, 1%).
conclusionsScale heterogeneity is a prevalent issue in healthcare DCEs. Despite this, few published DCEs have discussed such issues, and fewer still have used formal methods to identify and account for the impact of scale heterogeneity. The use of formal methods to test for scale heterogeneity should be used, otherwise the results of DCEs potentially risk producing biased and potentially misleading conclusions regarding preferences for aspects of healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29492903What 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.