ArticleThe patient2025
Putting the Choice in Choice Tasks: Incorporating Preference Elicitation Tasks in Health Preference Research.
Article in The patient, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extending the Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcome Scores through Patient-Preference Information.The patient · 2026Article
- Public Preferences and Willingness to Pay for a Multidisciplinary Colorectal and Pelvic Reconstruction Service.The patient · 2026Article
- Formative Research in the Codesign of a Discrete Choice Experiment with Patients with Myasthenia Gravis: Selecting and Refining Attributes, Levels and Scenarios.The patient · 2026Article
- Patient Preferences for Long-Term Prophylactic Treatment in Hereditary Angioedema: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.The patient · 2026Article
- Preferences for Mobile App Features to Support People Living With Chronic Heart Diseases: Discrete Choice Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Preferences for Neurodevelopmental Follow-Up Care for Children: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Choice-based preference elicitation methods such as the discrete choice experiment (DCE) present hypothetical choices to respondents, with an expectation that these hypothetical choices accurately reflect a 'real world' health-related decision context and that consequently the choice data can be held to be a true representation of the respondent's health or treatment preferences. For this to be the case, careful consideration needs to be given to the format of the choice task in a choice experiment. The overarching aim of this paper is to highlight important aspects to consider when designing and 'setting up' the choice tasks to be presented to respondents in a DCE. This includes the importance of considering the potential impact of format (e.g. choice context, choice set presentation and size) as well as choice set content (e.g. labelled and unlabelled choice sets and inclusion of reference alternatives) and choice questions (stated choice versus additional questions designed to explore complete preference orders) on the preference estimates that are elicited from studies. We endeavoure to instil a holistic approach to choice task design that considers format alongside content, experimental design and analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38744798What 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.