Trial reportHealth economics2022
Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single-best discrete choice experiments, should we use best-worst, best-best or ranking for preference elicitation?
Trial report in Health economics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single-best discrete choice experiments, should we use best-worst, best-best or ranking for preference elicitation?Health economics · 2022Trial
- 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
- US Retina Specialists' Preferences for Geographic Atrophy Treatment.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Population Preferences for Treatment in Life-Limiting Illness: Valuing the Way Time Is Spent at the End of Life.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Putting the Choice in Choice Tasks: Incorporating Preference Elicitation Tasks in Health Preference Research.The patient · 2025Article
- Patient preferences for key organizational features of primary cardiovascular care in Quebec: a discrete choice experiment.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Using stated preference methods to design gender-affirming long-acting PrEP programs for transgender and nonbinary adults.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Developing a person-centered stated preference survey for dementia with Lewy bodies: value of a personal and public involvement process.Frontiers in dementia · 2024Article
- A Comparison of Ordered Categorical versus Discrete Choices within a Stated Preference Survey of Whole-Blood Donors.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study undertook a head-to-head comparison of best-worst, best-best and ranking discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to help decide which method to use if moving beyond traditional single-best DCEs. Respondents were randomized to one of three preference elicitation methods. Rank-ordered (exploded) mixed logit models and respondent-reported data were used to compare methods and first and second choices. First choices differed from second choices and preferences differed between elicitation methods, even beyond scale and scale dynamics. First choices of best-worst had good choice consistency, scale dynamics and statistical efficiency, but this method's second choices performed worst. Ranking performed best on respondent-reported difficulty and preference; best-best's second choices on statistical efficiency. All three preference elicitation methods improve efficiency of data collection relative to using first choices only. However, differences in preferences between first and second choices challenge moving beyond single-best DCE. If nevertheless doing so, best-best and ranking are preferred over best-worst DCE.
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.