Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30392040›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2019

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.

Vikas Soekhai, Esther W de Bekker-Grob, Alan R Ellis, Caroline M Vass

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 431 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
431citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

431 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Stability of Willingness to Pay: Does Time and Treatment Allocation in a Randomized Controlled Trial Influence Willingness to Pay?Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

371 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Vikas SoekhaiSection of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000 DR, The Netherlands. soekhai@eshpm.eur.nl.
Esther W de Bekker-GrobSection of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre (ECMC), Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam, 3000 DR, The Netherlands.
Alan R EllisDepartment of Social Work, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7659-6969
Caroline M VassManchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6385-2812

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute ME-1602-34572
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly advocated as a way to quantify preferences for health. However, increasing support does not necessarily result in increasing quality. Although specific reviews have been conducted in certain contexts, there exists no recent description of the general state of the science of health-related DCEs. The aim of this paper was to update prior reviews (1990-2012), to identify all health-related DCEs and to provide a description of trends, current practice and future challenges.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify health-related empirical DCEs published between 2013 and 2017. The search strategy and data extraction replicated prior reviews to allow the reporting of trends, although additional extraction fields were incorporated.

resultsOf the 7877 abstracts generated, 301 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. In general, the total number of DCEs per year continued to increase, with broader areas of application and increased geographic scope. Studies reported using more sophisticated designs (e.g. D-efficient) with associated software (e.g. Ngene). The trend towards using more sophisticated econometric models also continued. However, many studies presented sophisticated methods with insufficient detail. Qualitative research methods continued to be a popular approach for identifying attributes and levels.

conclusionsThe use of empirical DCEs in health economics continues to grow. However, inadequate reporting of methodological details inhibits quality assessment. This may reduce decision-makers' confidence in results and their ability to act on the findings. How and when to integrate health-related DCE outcomes into decision-making remains an important area for future research.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorModels, EconometricDecision MakingEconomics, MedicalHumansPatient PreferenceResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID30392040
PMCPMC6386055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.