Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32367379›Full record

SynthesisThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2020

Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods.

Mina Bahrampour, Joshua Byrnes, Richard Norman, Paul A Scuffham, Martin Downes

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Cancer-specific utility: clinical validation of the EORTC QLU-C10D in patients with glioblastoma.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Valuing health and wellbeing using discrete choice experiment: exploring feasibility, design effect and international preference similarity.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Measuring the acceptability of EQ-5D-3L health states for different ages: a new adaptive survey methodology.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. NICE and the EQ-5D-5L: Ten Years Trouble.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mina BahrampourCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia. mina.bahrampour@griffithuni.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6915-1865
Joshua ByrnesCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6562-711X
Richard NormanSchool of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3112-3893
Paul A ScuffhamCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5931-642X
Martin DownesCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3617-5307

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn recent years, discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have become frequently used to generate utility values, but there are a diverse range of approaches to do this. The primary focus of this systematic review is to summarise the methods used for the design and analysis of DCEs when estimating utility values in both generic and condition-specific preference-based measures.

methodsPublished literature using DCEs to estimate utility values from preference-based instruments were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL using PRISMA guidelines. To assess the different DCE methods, standardised information was extracted from the articles including the DCE design method, the number of choice sets, the number of DCE pairs per person, randomisation of questions, analysis method, logical consistency tests and techniques for anchoring utilities. The CREATE checklist was used to assess the quality of the studies.

resultsA total of 38 studies with samples from the general population, students and patients were included. Values for health states described using generic multi attribute instruments (MAUIs) (especially the EQ-5D) were the most commonly explored using DCEs. The studies showed considerable methodology and design diversity (number of alternatives, attributes, sample size, choice task presentation and analysis). Despite these differences, the quality of articles reporting the methods used for the DCE was generally high.

conclusionDCEs are an important approach to measure utility values for both generic and condition-specific instruments. However, a gold standard method cannot yet be recommended.

Indexed as

Health StatusPatient PreferenceChoice BehaviorCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality of LifeRandom AllocationResearch DesignConjoint analysisDiscrete choice experimentHealth state valuationPreference-based measuresSystematic reviewUtility

Identifiers

PMID32367379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.