ReviewPharmacoEconomics2019
One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 4 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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health State Valuation: A Systematic Review of Progress and New Trends.Applied health economics and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of the Methodologies and Modelling Approaches Used to Generate International EQ-5D-5L Value Sets.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Pooled it
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Estimation of an EORTC QLU-C10 Value Set for Spain Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Trial
- Developing an Australian Value Set for the COCOON Carer Quality-of-Life Measure for Use in Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Deriving a Korean SF-6Dv2 Value Set Using a Discrete Choice Experiment with Duration.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Policy Levers for First-Contact Healthcare Provider Choice: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Shanghai's Hierarchical Medical System.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- A new health economic measure for improving the health and wellbeing of older Australians in subacute care settings: a study protocol.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-5L Using DCE Methods That Account for Nonlinear Time Preferences.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- United Kingdom value set for the functional assessment of cancer therapy eight dimension (FACT-8D) preference-based quality of life instrument.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Understanding decision-making strategies in discrete choice experiment tasks when valuing health states that include duration, a cognitive interview study with Australian adults.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Valuing health and wellbeing using discrete choice experiment: exploring feasibility, design effect and international preference similarity.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Measuring and Valuing Health Using EuroQol Instruments: New Developments 2025 and Beyond.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Review
- Japanese value set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension (FACT-8D) cancer-specific preference-based quality of life instrument.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- Putting the Choice in Choice Tasks: Incorporating Preference Elicitation Tasks in Health Preference Research.The patient · 2025Article
- Optimal DCE design for modelling nonlinear time preferences in EQ-5D-5L valuation studies: exploration of data from Denmark and Peru.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- A framework for extending the health-related quality adjusted life year by combining instruments.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- Developing a utility value set for the Gambling Quality of Life Scale-Brief (GQoLS-Brief) using a discrete choice experiment.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- The Short Form 6 Dimensions (SF-6D): Development and Evolution.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Review
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
backgroundDiscrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are used in the development of preference-based measure (PBM) value sets. There is considerable variation in the methodological approaches used to elicit preferences.
objectiveOur objective was to carry out a structured review of DCE methods used for health state valuation.
methodsPubMed was searched until 31 May 2018 for published literature using DCEs for health state valuation. Search terms to describe DCEs, the process of valuation and preference-based instruments were developed. English language papers with any study population were included if they used DCEs to develop or directly inform the production of value sets for generic or condition-specific PBMs. Assessment of paper quality was guided by the recently developed Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies. Data were extracted under six categories: general study information, choice task and study design, type of designed experiment, modelling and analysis methods, results and discussion.
resultsThe literature search identified 1132 published papers, and 63 papers were included in the review. Paper quality was generally high. The study design and choice task formats varied considerably, and a wide range of modelling methods were employed to estimate value sets.
conclusionsThis review of DCE methods used for developing value sets suggests some recurring limitations, areas of consensus and areas where further research is required. Methodological diversity means that the values should be seen as experimental, and users should understand the features of the value sets produced before applying them in decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30194624What 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.