ArticleThe patient2020
A Hierarchical Bayes Approach to Modeling Heterogeneity in Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Public Preferences for Prenatal Screening.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Public support for gun restrictions in public places that serve alcohol: the cost of enforcement matters.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Article
- Quantifying Benefit-Risk Trade-Offs Toward Prophylactic Treatment Among Adult Patients With Hemophilia A in China: Discrete Choice Experiment Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Blood Donors' Preferences Toward Incentives for Donation in China.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Review
- US Privacy Laws Go Against Public Preferences and Impede Public Health and Research: Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies assessing preferences for prenatal screening have focused on preferences of the affected population and have largely assumed homogeneous preferences. We aimed to estimate public preferences and willingness to pay for prenatal screening and diagnosis from a Canadian general population sample, and to model preferences at the individual level.
methodsA discrete choice experiment was used to elicit preferences for different aspects of prenatal screening and diagnostic strategies. Strategies differed in five attributes: timing of the results, false-negative rate, false-positive rate, risk of miscarriage, and out-of-pocket cost. Respondents made forced and unforced choices using a dual response approach. Hierarchical Bayes analysis was applied to estimate individual-level part-worth utilities. Individual probability and expected uptake of prenatal screening under different scenarios were also assessed. Subgroup analyses were conducted using individual-level preferences.
resultsThe final analyses were based on a sample of 4601 respondents. Results showed that the two most important attributes were false-negative rate and miscarriage risk. There was significant heterogeneity in preferences among respondents. Individuals' perception of the risk of pregnancy with chromosomal abnormalities affected their preferences for screening. The relatively high uptake of safe and accurate screening among all groups of respondents indicated people's desire for information about the health of their unborn baby regardless of their decision to continue the pregnancy.
conclusionOur findings are consistent with previous studies based on affected-population preferences. This concordance should be reassuring from a policy perspective and can inform the design of publicly funded prenatal screening programs.
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.