ReviewThe patient2022
Patient and Public Preferences for Coordinated Care in Switzerland: Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment.
Review in The patient, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preferences for Social Media Vaccination Messaging.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Patterns in Attribute Selection and Development Reporting in Patient Preference Studies Between 2007-2024: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Factors Affecting Telehealth Consultation in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Scoping Review.International journal of telemedicine and applications · 2026Review
- Monetary Risk Preferences and Demand for Preventative Treatment: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Individuals at High Risk for Lung Cancer.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Preferences for group psychological interventions on perinatal depression in China: a discrete choice experiment.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Stakeholders and Contextual Factors in the Implementation of Assistive Robotic Arms for Persons With Tetraplegia: Deductive Content Analysis of Focus Group Interviews.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Article
- Urban-rural differences in preferences for traditional Chinese medicine services among chronic disease patients: a discrete choice experiment.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2024Article
- Preferences for innovations in healthcare delivery models in the Swiss elderly population: a latent class, choice modelling study.European journal of public health · 2024Article
- What do Iranians value most when choosing a hospital? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment.PloS one · 2024Article
- Patient preferences for generic substitution policies: a discrete choice experiment in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Article
- Parental preferences for the procedural sedation of children in dentistry: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur objective was to develop and test a discrete choice experiment (DCE) eliciting public and patient preferences for better-coordinated care in Switzerland.
methodsWe applied a multistage mixed-methods procedure using qualitative and quantitative approaches. First, to identify attributes, we performed a review of the DCE literature in healthcare with a focus on chronic care. Next, attribute selection involved stakeholders (N = 7) from various healthcare sectors to select the most relevant and actionable attributes, followed by three organized focus groups involving the general public and patients (N = 21) to verify the selection and the clarity of the DCE tasks and explanations. Finally, we conducted an online pilot in the target population to test the survey and obtain priors for a final six tested attributes to refine the final design of the experiment.
resultsAfter identifying an initial 33 attributes, a final list of six attributes was selected following stakeholder involvement and the three focus groups involving the target population. At the online pilot-testing stage with 301 participants, the majority of respondents found the DCE choice tasks socially relevant for Switzerland but challenging. The quality of the answers was relatively high. Most attributes had signs matching those in the literature and focus group discussions.
conclusionThis article will be useful to researchers designing DCEs from a broad health policy perspective. The multistage approach involving a range of stakeholders was essential for the development of a DCE that is relevant for policy makers and well-accepted by the general public and patients.
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.