ArticleThe patient2022
Preference Paths and Their Kaizen Tasks for Small Samples.
Article in The patient, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- Studying different variations of ranking method to explore health related quality of life dimensions prioritization.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Valuing health states for infants and toddlers: challenges and methodological considerations in EQ-TIPS preference elicitation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Article
- Measuring Effectiveness Based on Patient Experience (Instead of QALYs) in US Value Assessments.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- The Performance of Kaizen Tasks Across Three Online Discrete Choice Experiment Surveys: An Evidence Synthesis.The patient · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStated preference research currently lacks a form of evidence that is well suited for small samples. A preference path is a sequence of two or more choices showing the evolution of an object following an adaptive process.
objectivesThe aims were to introduce preference paths and their kaizen tasks and to demonstrate how to analyze their evidence using a small sample.
methodsTwenty respondents were assigned the same 16 profiles generated from an orthogonal array based on the five attributes of the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system. Each kaizen task began with an opt-out paired comparison (i.e., choosing between the initial 10-year profile and the opt-out "dying immediately"), followed by choosing three changes, and ended with a second paired comparison (final profile versus opt-out) if the respondent chose opt-out initially. By maximum likelihood with respondent clusters, we estimated the 20 main effects using conditional logit and Zermelo-Bradley-Terry (ZBT) specifications.
resultsApart from demonstrating heterogeneity and profile effects, all main effect estimates were non-negative, and most were significant (15 for logit and all 20 for ZBT; p value < 0.05). Under the logit and ZBT specifications, the value of the worst EQ-5D-5L profile (55555) is - 0.920 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or - 1.478 QALYs, respectively. Furthermore, the findings illustrate a log-linear relationship between the logit and ZBT main effects.
conclusionThis paper demonstrates the feasibility of a stated-preference study that estimates 20 main effects using path evidence from 20 respondents (16 kaizen tasks, 15-min interviews). This approach shows promise for future application in stated-preference research, particularly in small samples.
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.