ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Optimizing presentation formats for SF-6Dv2 health status valuation: a qualitative study using cognitive interviews.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric Validation of the Spanish Version of the Sheffield Preference-Based Venous Leg Ulcer Questionnaire (SPVU-5D) in Patients With Venous Leg Ulcers.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Deriving a Korean SF-6Dv2 Value Set Using a Discrete Choice Experiment with Duration.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe SF-6Dv2 health status valuation using the discrete choice experiment (DCE) method requires effective presentation strategies to improve respondents' overall understanding and reduce bias, particularly in online surveys. This study aimed to determine the optimal presentation formats for DCE choice tasks through qualitative interviews.
methodsWe conducted cognitive interviews with 40 South Korean adults using the think-aloud and retrospective probing methods. Participants evaluated five presentation formats (non-emphasized, bold-underlined, yellow-highlighted, graphic circle, and color-shaded) and two duration attribute placement options (upfront vs. end).
resultsFindings revealed that the presentation format influenced three key areas: readability, comprehension, and comparative judgment. The yellow-highlighted format was the most preferred (50%), followed by the bold-underlined (37.5%) and graphic circle formats (25%), with multiple responses allowed. However, the yellow-highlighted format was criticized for being a visual burden and overlooking non-highlighted information, while the graphic format had issues such as scale direction confusion and inappropriate level summation across attributes. Meanwhile, the bold-underlined format was described easy to read, helpful in grasping the meaning quickly, and visually balanced, thereby reducing visual overload. Moreover, it supported comparative judgment by allowing users to clearly distinguish and compare domains without cognitive fatigue. Regarding duration placement, 26 participants preferred upfront placement, stating that it provided essential context for evaluation. Interestingly, the participants preferring upfront placement prioritized survival duration, while those preferring end placement emphasized the quality of life.
conclusionWhile the yellow-highlighted, bold-underlined, and graphic formats improved comprehension, we recommend the bold-underlined format for future SF-6Dv2 valuation studies as it balances comprehension enhancement with greater stability in choice contexts. The findings also suggest that the presentation format has the potential to influence DCE response patterns, warranting further consideration in survey design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40731109What 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.