ArticleTrials2019
Using discrete choice experiments to inform the design of complex interventions.
Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Using discrete choice experiments to develop and deliver patient-centered psychological interventions: a systematic review.Health psychology review · 2021Pooled it
- Understanding the preferences of younger women for the delivery of a service to predict breast cancer risk: a discrete choice experiment.BJC reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Preferences for TB treatment and support delivery models among people living with TB in Eastern Cape, South Africa: a discrete choice experiment.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2025Article
- Provider costs of professional COVID-19 rapid antigen testing in low-income settings.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Preference for HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Access Among Men who Have Sex With Men in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Feasibility of in-home monitoring for people with glaucoma: the I-TRAC mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Article
- Women's preferences for HIV prevention service delivery in pharmacies during pregnancy in Western Kenya: a discrete choice experiment.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2024Article
- Employees' seeking preference towards influenza vaccination in organization: A discrete choice experiment in China.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Using stated preference methods to facilitate knowledge translation in implementation science.Implementation science communications · 2024Article
- Understanding rural women's preferences for telephone call engagement with primary health care providers in Nigeria: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Identifying patient preferences for diabetes care: A protocol for implementing a discrete choice experiment in Samoa.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Article
- Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Article
- Preferences of people living with HIV for differentiated care models in Kenya: A discrete choice experiment.PloS one · 2021Article
- Exploring Relative Preferences for HIV Service Features Using Discrete Choice Experiments: a Synthetic Review.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2020Review
- Human-Centered Design Lessons for Implementation Science: Improving the Implementation of a Patient-Centered Care Intervention.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComplex health interventions must incorporate user preferences to maximize their potential effectiveness. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) quantify the strength of user preferences and identify preference heterogeneity across users. We present the process of using a DCE to supplement conventional qualitative formative research in the design of a demand creation intervention for voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) to prevent HIV in Tanzania.
methodsThe VMMC intervention was designed within a 3-month formative phase. In-depth interviews (n = 30) and participatory group discussions (n = 20) sought to identify broad setting-specific barriers to and facilitators of VMMC among adult men. Qualitative results informed the DCE development, identifying the role of female partners, service providers' attitudes and social stigma. A DCE among 325 men in Njombe and Tabora, Tanzania, subsequently measured preferences for modifiable VMMC service characteristics. The final VMMC demand creation intervention design drew jointly on the qualitative and DCE findings.
resultsWhile the qualitative research informed the community mobilization intervention, the DCE guided the specific VMMC service configuration. The significant positive utilities (u) for availability of partner counselling (u = 0.43, p < 0.01) and age-separated waiting areas (u = 0.21, p < 0.05) led to the provision of community information booths for partners and provision of age-separated waiting areas. The strong disutility of female healthcare providers (u = - 0.24, p < 0.01) led to re-training all providers on client-friendliness.
conclusionThis is, to our knowledge, the first study documenting how user preferences from DCEs can directly inform the design of a complex intervention. The use of DCEs as formative research may help increase user uptake and adherence to complex interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.