Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40314883›Full record

ArticleThe patient2025

Discrete Choice Experiment Versus Best-Worst Scaling: An Empirical Comparison in Eliciting Young People's Preferences for Web-Based Mental Health Interventions.

Thi Quynh Anh Ho, Lidia Engel, Long Khanh-Dao Le, Glenn Melvin, Jemimah Ride, Ha N D Le, Cathrine Mihalopoulos

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Thi Quynh Anh HoDeakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute of Health Transformation, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. t.ho@deakin.edu.au.ORCID 0009-0007-5535-2352
Lidia EngelSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University Health Economics Group, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Long Khanh-Dao LeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University Health Economics Group, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Glenn MelvinSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jemimah RideSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University Health Economics Group, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ha N D Le *Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute of Health Transformation, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Cathrine Mihalopoulos *Deakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute of Health Transformation, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) and best-worst scaling (BWS) profile cases (BWS case 2, or BWS-2) have been increasingly used in eliciting preferences towards health care interventions. However, it remains unclear which method is more suitable for preference elicitation, particularly in the mental health context. This study aims to compare: (1) the preference results elicited from a DCE and BWS-2; and (2) the acceptability of the two methods in the context of web-based mental health interventions (W-MHIs) for managing anxiety and depression in young people.

methodsParticipants were aged 18-25 years, lived in Australia, and self-reported experiencing anxiety and/or depression in the past 12 months. They also had either an intention to use W-MHIs or previous experience with W-MHIs for managing anxiety and/or depression. Recruitment was conducted online via social media and Deakin University notice boards. Eligible participants completed an online survey containing eight DCE and eight BWS-2 choice tasks. Both types of choice tasks comprised six attributes. A multinominal logit model was used to estimate the preference weights and relative importance of attributes. Acceptability was assessed on the basis of dropout rate, completion time, task difficulty, understanding, and participants' preferred type of choice task.

resultsA total of 198 participants (mean age: 21.42 ± 2.3 years, 64.65% female) completed the survey. Both DCE and BWS-2 predicted that cost was the most important attribute in young people's decision to engage with W-MHIs. However, the two methods differed in the relative importance of attributes and the preference ranking of levels within attributes. The DCE was perceived as easier to understand and answer, with nearly 64% of the participants preferring it over the BWS-2.

conclusionsWhile both methods found cost was the most important attribute associated with engagement with W-MHIs, differences in the ranking of other attributes suggest that DCE and BWS-2 are not necessarily interchangeable. Increased acceptability by study participants of the DCE format suggests that this technique may have more merit than BWS-2-at least in the current study's context. Further research is required to identify the optimal method for determining the relative importance of attributes.

Indexed as

AnxietyChoice BehaviorDepressionInternet-Based InterventionMental Health ServicesPatient PreferenceAdolescentAdultAustraliaFemaleHumansInternetMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40314883
PMCPMC12170701

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.