Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39987002›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Health valuation protocol for dual discrete choice experiment (dual-DCE) surveys to estimate the effects of different scenarios and attributes on main effects.

Benjamin Matthew Craig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The psychometric performance of the EQ-5D-5L composite and component items in the U.S. General population and by age group.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

1 author.

Benjamin Matthew CraigUniversity of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA bcraig@usf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1121-1316

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA typical health preference study conducts a single discrete choice experiment (DCE). For example, a health valuation study may elicit preferences on an individual's health-related quality of life along five EQ-5D-5L attributes (Mobility, Self-care, Usual Activities, Pain/Discomfort, Anxiety/Depression). Using this protocol, researchers can conduct a dual-DCE survey (ie, with two different full-block DCEs completed sequentially). To demonstrate this protocol, we will conduct 12 dual-DCE surveys in two waves and estimate the effects of different scenarios and descriptive systems on main effects (ie, incremental differences in value between levels). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Each of the two DCEs in a dual-DCE survey equates to a stand-alone health valuation study. To demonstrate this protocol, each is an EQ-5D-5L valuation study, including d-efficient blocks of 15 kaizen tasks and 5 paired comparisons. In wave 1 (six surveys, 1000 US adults each), the two DCEs will differ by scenario (1-year episodes ending in recovery or death or no duration/ending described). In wave 2 (six surveys, 200 US adults each), the two DCEs will include the same 5 EQ-5D-5L attributes but differ by the number of additional attributes related to cognition: none, one composite attribute (memory/concentration) and two component attributes (memory, concentration). For each DCE, we will estimate a conditional logit model and test for differences in value using cluster bootstrap techniques. We hypothesise that the values will differ by scenarios and systems. As secondary analyses, we assess the effects of sampling, scenario/system order and DCE order. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The independent review board (IRB) at Advarra determined that this research project (Pro00080475; 11 July 2024) is exempt from IRB oversight based on the Department of Health and Human Services regulations found at 45 CFR 46.104(d)(2). Furthermore, the IRB determined that the project is not subject to requirements for continuing review. To disseminate our findings, we will prepare multiple manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed journals and present highlights at scientific meetings, such as the EuroQol Plenary Meeting, International Academy of Health Preference Research and ISPOR.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorHealth StatusPatient PreferenceQuality of LifeAdultFemaleHumansMaleResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesBehaviourCognitionHEALTH ECONOMICSPatient PreferencePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID39987002
PMCPMC11848668

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.