Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29492903›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2018

Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review.

Stuart J Wright, Caroline M Vass, Gene Sim, Michael Burton, Denzil G Fiebig, Katherine Payne

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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 · 2023
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
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

6 authors.

Stuart J WrightManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4064-7998
Caroline M VassManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6385-2812
Gene SimManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Michael BurtonUWA School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4213-4093
Denzil G FiebigSchool of Economics, University of New South Wales Business School Building, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3707-1940
Katherine PayneManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. katherine.payne@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3938-4350

Funding

The Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences Mind the Risk
6 · The paper itself

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

Choice BehaviorDecision MakingResearch DesignBiomedical ResearchHumansLogistic ModelsModels, OrganizationalPatient Preference

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.