ReviewHealth economics review2020
Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals.
Review in Health economics review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Preferences of Cancer Survivors for Follow-Up Care: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Guidance or Misdirection? Unpacking the Role of Feedback in Health Preference Assessments.Health economics · 2026Article
- Article
- Patient and Physician Preferences for Add-On Systemic Therapy to Transarterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Liver cancer · 2026Article
- Key Information Influencing Patient Decision-Making About AI in Health Care: Survey Experiment Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Provider Preferences About a Polypill for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Development of a Multicenter Physician Survey Containing a Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of cardiac failure - intersections · 2026Article
- Quantifying Patient Preferences for Basal Insulin Treatments in Adults Living with Type 2 Diabetes: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Canada, Spain, France, and Japan.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2025Article
- Preferences of healthcare workers for security personnel to prevent occupational violence: A discrete choice experiment.Work (Reading, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Preferences for Mobile App Features to Support People Living With Chronic Heart Diseases: Discrete Choice Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- What Do People Want from an AI-Assisted Screening App for Sexually Transmitted Infection-Related Anogenital Lesions: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2025Article
- Patient-Centred Gestational Diabetes Care: Preference Elicitation Methods and Machine Learning Innovations.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Review
- A Reporting Checklist for Discrete Choice Experiments in Health: The DIRECT Checklist.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
- Article
- Patient and Healthcare Professional Preferences for Prescription Weight Loss Medications in Australia: Two Discrete Choice Experiments.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Physical Activity Preferences of People Living with Brain Injury: Formative Qualitative Research to Develop a Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2023Article
- Preferences for HIV prevention strategies among newly arrived Asian-born men who have sex with men living in Australia: A discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Public Preferences and Willingness to Pay for a COVID-19 Vaccine in Iran: A Discrete Choice Experiment.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2022Article
- Colorectal cancer screening preferences among physicians and individuals at average risk: A discrete choice experiment.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Patients' preferences for telemedicine versus in-clinic consultation in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC primary care · 2022Article
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
Abstract
introductionDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been used to measure patient and healthcare professionals preferences in a range of settings internationally. Using DCEs in primary care is valuable for determining how to improve rational shared decision making. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the validity of the methods used for DCEs assessing the decision making of healthcare professionals in primary care. MAIN BODY: A systematic search was conducted to identify articles with original data from a discrete choice experiment where the population was primary healthcare professionals. All publication dates from database inception to 29th February 2020 were included. A data extraction and validity assessment template based on guidelines was used. After screening, 34 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. The sample sizes of the DCEs ranged from 10 to 3727. The published DCEs often provided insufficient detail about the process of determining the attributes and levels. The majority of the studies did not involve primary care healthcare professionals outside of the research team in attribute identification and selection. Less than 80% of the DCEs were piloted and few papers investigated internal or external validity.
conclusionsFor findings to translate into improvements in rational shared decision making in primary care DCEs need to be internally and externally valid and the findings need to be able to be communicated to stakeholders in a way that is understandable and relevant.
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.