ArticleBMC health services research2022
Methodology to derive preference for health screening programmes using discrete choice experiments: a scoping review.
Article in BMC health services research, 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.
- Discrete Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analyses in Health Screening Programs for Type 2 Diabetes and Liver Disease: A Scoping Review.Canadian liver journal · 2025Pooled it
- Engaging tuberculosis-affected people in investment decisions: applying a people-centered design approach in Viet Nam.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Understanding women's preferences for long-acting reversible contraceptives in Gondar, Ethiopia: a discrete choice experiment.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Deriving Drug Treatment Preference for Osteoporosis Patients Using Discrete Choice Experiments: A Scoping Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Review
- Female sex worker preferences for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis delivery in Uganda: A discrete choice experiment.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Consumer Preferences for a Healthcare Appointment Reminder in Australia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2024Article
- A discrete choice experiment to elicit preferences for a liver screening programme in Queensland, Australia: a mixed methods study to select attributes and levels.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Analysis of Current Situation Regarding Scientific Fitness Literacy of Nurses in Sports Medicine Integration.Risk management and healthcare policy · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile involving users in healthcare decision-making has become increasingly common and important, there is a lack of knowledge about how to best design community-based health screening programs. Reviews of methods that incorporate discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are scarce, particularly for non-cancer illnesses like cardiovascular disease, diabetes and liver disease. We provide an overview of currently available applications and methods available by using DCEs in health screening programs, for chronic conditions.
methodsA scoping review was undertaken, where four electronic databases were searched for key terms to identify eligible DCE studies related to community health screening. We included studies that met a pre-determined criteria, including being published between 2011 and 2021, in English and reported findings on human participants. Data were systematically extracted, tabulated, and summarised in a narrative review.
resultsA total of 27 studies that used a DCE to elicit preferences for cancer (n = 26) and cardiovascular disease screening (n = 1) programmes were included in the final analysis. All studies were assessed for quality, against a list of 13 criteria, with the median score being 9/13 (range 5-12). Across the 27 studies, the majority (80%) had the same overall scores. Two-thirds of included studies reported a sample size calculation, approximately half (13/27) administered the survey completely online and over 75% used the general public as the participating population.
conclusionOur review has led to highlighting several areas of current practice that can be improved, particularly greater use of sample size calculations, increased use of qualitative methods, better explanation of the chosen experimental design including how choice sets are generated, and methods for analysis.
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.