Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34008164›Full record

ArticleThe patient2021

Methods for Conducting Stated Preference Research with Children and Adolescents in Health: A Scoping Review of the Application of Discrete Choice Experiments.

Christine Michaels-Igbokwe, Gillian R Currie, Bryanne L Kennedy, Karen V MacDonald, Deborah A Marshall

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Patient preferences and willingness to pay for transitional care in breast cancer: a discrete choice experiment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
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.

Christine Michaels-IgbokweDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0469-7055
Gillian R CurrieDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada. currie@ucalgary.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-4681-9893
Bryanne L KennedyDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9891-020X
Karen V MacDonaldDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7739-4296
Deborah A MarshallDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8467-8008

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a common method used to describe and quantitatively assess preferences in health applications. Increasingly, DCEs have been used to elicit preferences from children and adolescents and generate evidence to inform policies affecting this population.

objectivesThe aim of this review was to summarize and describe the application of DCEs conducted with children and adolescents and describe author-reported age-specific considerations in design, implementation, and analysis.

methodsA scoping review was conducted using a 'pearl-growing' technique whereby the reference lists of existing systematic reviews of DCEs were used to identify potential studies conducted with children or adolescents as respondents published between 1990 and 2017. This list was supplemented with an updated electronic search using the same strategy as the initial reviews to identify studies from 2017 to 2020.

resultsOf 480 studies identified, 19 were included; topics included vaccines (32%), drugs/medical devices (26%), treatment or health promotion interventions/programs (21%), warning labels on cigarettes/nicotine products (10%), and preferences for physical activity and healthy food choices (10%). The youngest reported age for independent DCE completion was 8 years. Approaches to assessing validity and reliability of choices were consistent with best practices for the conduct of DCEs. Reported age-specific considerations included use of visual aids, age-appropriate language, reducing task complexity and cognitive burden, and exploration of interpretation of willingness-to-pay.

conclusionThe number of DCEs conducted with children and adolescents has increased in recent years. Detailed explanation of why reported age-specific considerations were necessary, how they could be used to interpret results, or to understand the appropriateness of this methodology for different age groups was limited. Despite a recognition of the need for special consideration when conducting DCEs in this population, the unique issues in the context of age-specific considerations are largely unexplored, and further research is required. Moving forward, stated preference research conducted with children and adolescents should report in more detail methods of recruitment, results of validity assessments, and provide specific reflection on the extent to which modeled results are consistent with expectations and underlying theory.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceVaccinesAdolescentChildChoice BehaviorHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignVaccines

Identifiers

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.