Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36997744›Full record

SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2023

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health State Valuation: A Systematic Review of Progress and New Trends.

Haode Wang, Donna L Rowen, John E Brazier, Litian Jiang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year across different time horizons: direct elicitation in Quebec.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-5L Using DCE Methods That Account for Nonlinear Time Preferences.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Understanding decision-making strategies in discrete choice experiment tasks when valuing health states that include duration, a cognitive interview study with Australian adults.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  10. Valuing health and wellbeing using discrete choice experiment: exploring feasibility, design effect and international preference similarity.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Discrete Choice Experiments to Advance Cardiovascular Health.European journal of preventive cardiology · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Haode WangSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, 30 Regent St, Sheffield City Centre, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. hwang165@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5671-8658
Donna L RowenSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, 30 Regent St, Sheffield City Centre, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
John E BrazierSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, 30 Regent St, Sheffield City Centre, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Litian JiangHealth Policy Research Unit, Shenzhen Health Development Research and Data Management Center, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China.

Funding

EuroQol Research Foundation PhD research fundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health state valuation studies.

objectiveThis systematic review updates the progress and new findings of DCE studies in the health state valuation, covering the period since the review of June 2018 to November 2022. The review reports the methods that are currently being used in DCE studies to value health and study design characteristics, and, for the first time, reviews DCE health state valuation studies published in the Chinese language.

methodsEnglish language databases PubMed and Cochrane, and Chinese language databases Wanfang and CNKI were searched using the self-developed search terms. Health state valuation or methodology study papers were included if the study used DCE data to generate a value set for a preference-based measure. Key information extracted included DCE study design strategies applied, methods for anchoring the latent coefficient on to a 0-1 QALY scale and data analysis methods.

resultsSixty-five studies were included; one Chinese language publication and 64 English language publications. The number of health state valuation studies using DCE has rapidly increased in recent years and these have been conducted in more countries than prior to 2018. Wide usage of DCE with duration attributes, D-efficient design and models accounting for heterogeneity has continued in recent years. Although more methodological consensus has been found than in studies conducted prior to 2018, this consensus may be driven by valuation studies for common measures with an international protocol (the 'model' valuation research). Valuing long measures with well-being attributes attracted attention and more realistic design strategies (e.g., inconstant time preference, efficient design and implausible states design) were identified. However, more qualitative and quantitative methodology study is still necessary to evaluate the effect of those new methods.

conclusionsThe use of DCEs in health state valuation continues to grow dramatically and the methodology progress makes the method more reliable and pragmatic. However, study design is driven by international protocols and method selection is not always justified. There is no gold standard for DCE design, presentation format or anchoring method. More qualitative and quantitative methodology study is recommended to evaluate the effect of new methods before researchers make methodology decisions.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient PreferenceHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID36997744
PMCPMC10062300

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.