ReviewThe patient2020
Opening the 'Black Box': An Overview of Methods to Investigate the Decision-Making Process in Choice-Based Surveys.
Review in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Making Use of Technology to Improve Stated Preference Studies.The patient · 2024Review
- Exploring patient treatment decision making for osteoarthritis in the UAE: a cross-sectional adaptive choice-based conjoint study.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Continuing the sequence? Towards an economic evaluation of whole genome sequencing for the diagnosis of rare diseases in Scotland.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Patients' preferences for telemedicine versus in-clinic consultation in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Methods for Conducting Stated Preference Research with Children and Adolescents in Health: A Scoping Review of the Application of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2021Article
- Article
- Using Eye-Tracking Technology with Older People in Memory Clinics to Investigate the Impact of Mild Cognitive Impairment on Choices for EQ-5D-5L Health States Preferences.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Article
- Factors influencing patients' preferences for their treating physician.Saudi medical journal · 2020Article
- A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies.The patient · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The desire to understand the preferences of patients, healthcare professionals and the public continues to grow. Health valuation studies, often in the form of discrete choice experiments, a choice based survey approach, proliferate as a result. A variety of methods of pre-choice process analysis have been developed to investigate how and why people make their decisions in such experiments and surveys. These techniques have been developed to investigate how people acquire and process information and make choices. These techniques offer the potential to test and improve theories of choice and/or associated empirical models. This paper provides an overview of such methods, with the focus on their use in stated choice-based healthcare studies. The methods reviewed are eye tracking, mouse tracing, brain imaging, deliberation time analysis and think aloud. For each method, we summarise the rationale, implementation, type of results generated and associated challenges, along with a discussion of possible future developments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31486021What 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.