ArticlePatient preference and adherence2019
How psychological distance of a study sample in discrete choice experiments affects preference measurement: a colorectal cancer screening case study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 5 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Public Preferences for Emerging Cancer Screening Modalities: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Public Preferences for Genetic and Genomic Risk-Informed Chronic Disease Screening and Early Detection: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Applied health economics and health policy · 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
- Systematic review of quantitative preference studies of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis among patients and at-risk populations.Arthritis research & therapy · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Can the General Public Be a Proxy for an "At-Risk" Group in a Patient Preference Study? A Disease Prevention Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- What matters most to pediatric rheumatologists in deciding whether to discontinue biologics in a child with juvenile idiopathic arthritis? A best-worst scaling survey.Clinical rheumatology · 2023Article
- Balancing benefits and risks in lung cancer therapies: patient preferences for lung cancer treatment alternatives.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Psychological distance: a qualitative study of screening barriers among first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Article
- Trading patients' choice in providers for quality of maternity care? A discrete choice experiment amongst pregnant women.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate to what extent the outcomes of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) differ based on respondents' psychological distance to the decision at hand.
methodsA DCE questionnaire regarding individuals' preferences for genetic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) within the Dutch national CRC screening program was created. The DCE contained nine D-efficient designed choice tasks and was distributed among two populations that differ in their psychological distance to the decision at hand: 1) a representative sample of the Dutch general population aged 55-65 years, and 2) a sample of Dutch individuals who attended an information appointment regarding colonoscopies following the detection of blood in their stool sample in the CRC screening program. The DCE consisted of four attributes related to the decision whether to participate in genetic screening for CRC: 1) risk of being genetically predisposed, 2) risk of developing CRC, 3) frequency of follow-up colonoscopies, and 4) survival. Direct attribute ranking, dominant decision-making behavior, and relative importance scores (based on panel MIXL) were compared between the two populations. Attribute level estimates were compared with the Swait and Louviere test.
resultsThe proportion of respondents who both ranked survival as the most important attribute, and showed dominant decision-making behavior for this attribute, was significantly higher in the screened population compared to the general population. The relative importance scores of the attributes significantly differed between populations. Finally, the Swait and Louviere test also revealed significant differences in attribute level estimates in both the populations.
conclusionThe study outcomes differed between populations depending on their psychological distance to the decision. This study shows the importance of adequate sample selection; therefore, it is advocated to increase attention to study sample selection and reporting in DCE studies.
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.