ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025
An Empirical Comparison of Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling to Estimate Patient Preferences in Infertility Treatment in China.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. 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.
- Patient-Centred Gestational Diabetes Care: Preference Elicitation Methods and Machine Learning Innovations.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Review
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
Background: Infertility has become a growing public health problem in China. It is important to accurately and easily obtain patient preferences. This study aimed to obtain and compare stated preference results from the perspective of infertility patients. By assessing the validity and acceptability of both methods, it provides lessons for empirical research and practical application. Methods: Discrete choice experiments (DCE) and profile case best-worst scaling (BWS-2) are methods used to identify and weigh various criteria affecting the order of priorities. We conducted a face-to-face survey of female patients with infertility aged between 20-45 years. The survey included socio-demographic information, preference questionnaires and completion of evaluation questions. Attributes included live birth rate, pregnancy rate, degree of participation in treatment decision making, maternal complications, neonatal complications and program cost. Conditional logit models were used to analyze attribute level weights and relative importance was calculated separately. Results: A total of 330 valid questionnaires were collected. The preferences of patients experiencing infertility were quantified through two stated preference research methods. The findings indicated that patients exhibited a preference for treatment options that were highly effective, exhibited minimal side effects, were patient-centered, and were cost-effective. The BWS-2 and DCE preference weights demonstrated high consistency, with only slight difference observed in the ranking of individual attributes within the order of relative importance. In the view of the patients, the DCE questions were perceived to be less challenging to comprehend and were therefore preferred to be completed. Conclusion: The BWS-2 and DCE exhibit identical validity and highly consistent preference results. In the context of specific research questions, the selection of a method or the combination of methods must be suitable to the purpose of the study in order to ensure that the utility gained is maximized. Further research is required to corroborate these findings.
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.