ArticlePatient preference and adherence2024
Comparing the Self-Reported Acceptability of Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling: An Empirical Study in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A study on the design of literacy toy for children with parent-child interactions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
Purpose: Discrete choice experiment (DCE) and profile case (case 2) best-worst scaling (BWS) present uncertainties regarding the acceptability of quantifying individual healthcare preferences, which may adversely affect the validity of responses and impede the reflection of true healthcare preferences. This study aimed to assess the acceptability of these two methods from the perspective of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and examine their association with specific characteristics of the target population. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional study was based on a nationally representative survey; data were collected using a multistage stratified cluster-sampling procedure between September 2021 and January 2022. Eligible adults with confirmed T2DM voluntarily participated in this study. Participants completed both the DCE and case 2 BWS (BWS-2) choice tasks in random order and provided self-reported assessments of acceptability, including task completion difficulty, comprehension of task complexity, and response preference. Logistic regression and random forest models were used to identify variables associated with acceptability. Results: In total, 3286 patients with T2DM were included in the study. Respondents indicated there was no statistically significant difference in completion difficulty between the DCE and BWS-2, although the DCE scores were slightly higher (3.07 ± 0.68 vs 3.03 ± 0.67, P = 0.06). However, 1979 (60.2%) respondents found the DCE easier to comprehend. No significant preferences were observed between the two methods (1638 (49.8%) vs 1648 (50.2%)). Sociodemographic factors, such as residence, monthly out-of-pocket costs, and illness duration were significantly associated with comprehension complexity and response preference. Conclusion: This study yielded contrasting results to most of previous studies, suggesting that DCE may be less cognitively demanding and more suitable for patients with T2DM from the perspective of self-reported acceptability of DCE and BWS. This study promotes a focus on patient acceptability in quantifying individual healthcare preferences to inform tailored optimal stated-preference method for a target population.
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.