ReviewPloS one2023
Development of a discrete choice experiment questionnaire to elicit preferences by pregnant women and policymakers for the expansion of non-invasive prenatal screening.
Review in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Perception of non-layperson advisory committee members on the application of a discrete choice experiment instrument to patients and advisory committee members: a qualitative study.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Pregnant women's and policymakers' preferences for the expansion of noninvasive prenatal screening: A discrete choice experiment approach study.Health science reports · 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
objectiveAn instrument for measuring intervention preferences applicable to both patients and policymakers would make it possible to better confront the needs of the supply and demand sides of the health care system. This study aimed to develop a discrete choice experiments (DCE) questionnaire to elicit the preferences of patients and policymakers. The instrument was specifically developed to estimate preferences for new conditions to be added to a screening program for fetal chromosomal anomalies.
methodsA DCE development study was conducted. The methods employed included a literature review, a qualitative study (based on individual semi-structured interviews, consultations, and a focus group discussion) with pregnant women and policymakers, and a pilot project with 33 pregnant women to validate the first version of the instrument and test the feasibility of its administration.
resultsAn initial list of 10 attributes was built based on a literature review and the qualitative research components of the study. Five attributes were built based on the responses provided by the participants from both groups. Eight attributes were consensually retained. A pilot project performed on 33 pregnant women led to a final instrument containing seven attributes: 'conditions to be screened', 'test performance', 'moment at gestational age to obtain the test result', 'degree of test result certainty to the severity of the disability', 'test sufficiency', 'information provided from test result', and 'cost related to the test'.
conclusionIt is possible to reach a consensus on the construction of a DCE instrument intended to be administered to pregnant women and policymakers. However, complete validation of the consensual instrument is limited because there are too few voting members of health technology assessment agencies committees to statistically ascertain the relevance of the attributes and their levels.
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.