ArticleHealth economics2026
You've Been Framed: The Impact of Risk and Time Framings on Contraceptive Preferences in a Discrete Choice Experiment.
Article in Health economics, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research shows that choices are influenced by how probabilities are presented, that we value losses more than gains, and that we misunderstand cumulative probabilities over time. These factors are important when designing discrete choice experiments (DCEs) because almost all include some representation of probability over a time period. Contraceptive choice is one of the most common health choices and requires people to trade-off between efficacy, side effects, and modality. We used a DCE to explore whether people chose differently when faced with positive or negative framings of contraceptive effectiveness or valued 1-year or 3-year cumulative risks differentially. We developed a simple eight-task DCE with three attributes: effectiveness, administration frequency, and (non-)hormonal nature. Participants saw effectiveness as either positively or negatively, and with numerically equivalent 1-year and cumulative 3-year effectiveness values. We used mixed multinomial logistic regression models with interaction terms and explored preference heterogeneity. The negative frame increased sensitivity to effectiveness by 18% (p = 0.04) and sensitivity to cumulative effectiveness over 3 years was 10% less than over 1 year (p = 0.01). Preferences were heterogenous with respect to attributes but not framing effects. Attribute framing substantially affected preferences for effectiveness, and decisions around risk presentation should be reported transparently.
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.