ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2019
Using discrete choice model to elicit preference for health-care priority setting.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 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
- Systematic Review of the Relative Social Value of Child and Adult Health.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Pooled it
- Stated preferences in the Iranian health system: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments and conjoint analysis.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Exploration of preferences among people with COPD to inform resource allocation: a discrete choice experiment study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2024Article
- Healthcare priority-setting criteria and social values in Iran: an investigation of local evidence.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Review
- Development of attributes and levels of mental health insurance services using a discrete choice experiment.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
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
backgroundRegarding lack of resources in the health-care sector, prioritization of these resources is inevitable. The objective of the current study was to elicit public preference in prioritizing and allocating health resources using a discrete choice experiment technique, which is currently the most commonly applied method in this field of researches.
methodsIn this discrete choice study, five attributes were selected through interview with 25 health experts to elicit people preferences in Tehran (Iran) in 2017. Eighteen choice tasks were arranged within 3 blocks, and this would be achieved with a sample size of 579. Choice data were modeled using generalized estimating equation method and STATA 14 software.
resultsFive attributes including level of emergency, severity of disease, communicable, benefit from treatment, and age are the most important attributes in the prioritizing health resources from the expert's point of view. As well as among these attributes, communicable (odds ratio = 2.81) is the most important attributes from the public's point of view.
conclusionThe results of this study could be very useful for prioritizing resources which is one of the most challenging measurements of the health system. By identifying the importance of each patient's characteristic, patients can be categorized in groups with different priorities, as well as the diagnosis-related group system, based on which resources are allocated.
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.