ArticleThe patient2020
A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: The Role of Survey Training Materials in Stated-Preference Studies.
Article in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- The Impact of Video-Based Educational Materials with Voiceovers on Preferences for Glucose Monitoring Technology in Patients with Diabetes: A Randomised Study.The patient · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Guidance or Misdirection? Unpacking the Role of Feedback in Health Preference Assessments.Health economics · 2026Article
- The Citizens' Distributional Preferences for Health Care Resource Allocations: The Non-Negligible Role of Option Value.Health economics · 2025Article
- Engaging Underserved Populations in Health Preference Research: Challenges and Strategies.The patient · 2025Article
- Stated-Preference Survey Design and Testing in Health Applications.The patient · 2025Article
- Public Valuations of Managing Compromised Molars: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of dental research · 2025Article
- Making Use of Technology to Improve Stated Preference Studies.The patient · 2024Review
- Research Priorities to Increase Confidence in and Acceptance of Health Preference Research: What Questions Should be Prioritized Now?The patient · 2024Article
- Quantifying weight loss program preferences of men working in trade and labor occupations: A discrete choice experiment.Obesity science & practice · 2023Article
- Patients' Preferences for Connected Insulin Pens: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.The patient · 2023Article
- Towards Personalising the Use of Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2022Article
- Patient preferences for gene therapy in haemophilia: Results from the PAVING threshold technique survey.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2021Article
- Patient Preferences to Assess Value IN Gene Therapies: Protocol Development for the PAVING Study in Hemophilia.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Mobilising the Next Generation of Stated-Preference Studies: the Association of Access Device with Choice Behaviour and Data Quality.The patient · 2021Article
- Depression treatment preferences by race/ethnicity and gender and associations between past healthcare discrimination experiences and present preferences in a nationally representative sample.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2020Article
- Understanding the Impact of Different Modes of Information Provision on Preferences for a Newborn Bloodspot Screening Program in the United Kingdom.MDM policy & practiceArticle
- Exploring Decisional Conflict With Measures of Numeracy and Optimism in a Stated Preference Survey.MDM policy & practiceArticle
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
Abstract
backgroundOnline survey-based methods are increasingly used to elicit preferences for healthcare. This digitization creates an opportunity for interactive survey elements, potentially improving respondents' understanding and/or engagement.
objectiveOur objective was to understand whether, and how, training materials in a survey influenced stated preferences.
methodsAn online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit public preferences for a new targeted approach to prescribing biologics ("biologic calculator") for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with conventional prescribing. The DCE presented three alternatives, two biologic calculators and a conventional approach (opt out), described by five attributes: delay to treatment, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, infection risk, and cost saving to the national health service. Respondents were randomized to receive training materials as plain text or an animated storyline. Training materials contained information about RA and approaches to treatment and described the biologic calculator. Background questions included sociodemographics and self-reported measures of task difficulty and attribute non-attendance. DCE data were analyzed using conditional and heteroskedastic conditional logit (HCL) models.
resultsIn total, 300 respondents completed the DCE, receiving either plain text (n = 158) or the animated storyline (n = 142). The HCL showed the estimated coefficients for all attributes aligned with a priori expectations and were statistically significant. The scale term was statistically significant, indicating that respondents who received plain-text materials had more random choices. Further tests suggested preference homogeneity after accounting for differences in scale.
conclusionsUsing animated training materials did not change the preferences of respondents, but they appeared to improve choice consistency, potentially allowing researchers to include more complex designs with increased numbers of attributes, levels, alternatives or choice sets.
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.