Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35067858›Full record

ReviewThe patient2022

Patient and Public Preferences for Coordinated Care in Switzerland: Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Anna Nicolet, Clémence Perraudin, Joël Wagner, Ingrid Gilles, Nicolas Krucien, Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux, Joachim Marti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Factors Affecting Telehealth Consultation in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Scoping Review.International journal of telemedicine and applications · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Anna NicoletCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Biopôle 2 SV-A, Route de la Corniche 10, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland. Anna.Nicolet@unisante.ch.ORCID 0000-0001-9125-1697
Clémence PerraudinCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Biopôle 2 SV-A, Route de la Corniche 10, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Joël WagnerDepartment of Actuarial Science, Faculty of Business and Economics (HEC), and Swiss Finance Institute, University of Lausanne, Chamberonne - Extranef, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ingrid GillesCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Biopôle 2 SV-A, Route de la Corniche 10, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nicolas KrucienPatient-Centered Research, Evidera, London, UK.
Isabelle Peytremann-BridevauxCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Biopôle 2 SV-A, Route de la Corniche 10, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Joachim MartiCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Biopôle 2 SV-A, Route de la Corniche 10, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Choice BehaviorPatient PreferenceFocus GroupsHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesSwitzerland

Identifiers

PMID35067858
PMCPMC9197802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.