Trial reportThe patient2019
"I Was Trying to Do the Maths": Exploring the Impact of Risk Communication in Discrete Choice Experiments.
Trial report in The patient, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Pooled it
- Using Separate Single-Outcome Risk Presentations Instead of Integrated Multioutcome Formats Improves Comprehension in Discrete Choice Experiments.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Trial
- How to Present a Decision Object in Health Preference Research: Attributes and Levels, the Decision Model, and the Descriptive Framework.The patient · 2025Article
- Patient preferences for adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma: a discrete-choice experiment.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Making Use of Technology to Improve Stated Preference Studies.The patient · 2024Review
- Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?The patient · 2024Article
- Article
- Physical Activity Preferences of People Living with Brain Injury: Formative Qualitative Research to Develop a Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2023Article
- High-Efficacy Disease-Modifying Therapies in People with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: The Role of Risk Attitude in Treatment Decisions.The patient · 2021Article
- Article
- Mobilising the Next Generation of Stated-Preference Studies: the Association of Access Device with Choice Behaviour and Data Quality.The patient · 2021Article
- Article
- A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies.The patient · 2020Article
- Opening the 'Black Box': An Overview of Methods to Investigate the Decision-Making Process in Choice-Based Surveys.The patient · 2020Review
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
backgroundRisk is increasingly used as an attribute in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). However, risk and probabilities are complex concepts that can be open to misinterpretation, potentially undermining the robustness of DCEs as a valuation method. This study aimed to understand how respondents made benefit-risk trade-offs in a DCE and if these were affected by the communication of the risk attributes.
methodsFemale members of the public were recruited via local advertisements to participate in think-aloud interviews when completing a DCE eliciting their preferences for a hypothetical breast screening programme described by three attributes: probability of detecting a cancer; risk of unnecessary follow-up; and cost of screening. Women were randomised to receive risk information as either (1) percentages or (2) percentages and icon arrays. Interviews were digitally recorded then transcribed to generate qualitative data for thematic analysis.
resultsNineteen women completed the interviews (icon arrays n = 9; percentages n = 10). Analysis revealed four key themes where women made references to (1) the nature of the task; (2) their feelings; (3) their experiences, for instance making analogies to similar risks; and (4) economic phenomena such as opportunity costs and discounting.
conclusionMost women completed the DCE in line with economic theory; however, violations were identified. Women appeared to visualise risk whether they received icon arrays or percentages only. Providing clear instructions and graphics to aid interpretation of risk and qualitative piloting to verify understanding is recommended. Further investigation is required to determine if the process of verbalising thoughts changes the behaviour of respondents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30099692What 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.