ArticleIranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR
Developing a Discrete Choice Experiment Instrument for Evaluating Patients' Preferences in Precision Oncology.
Article in Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research : IJPR. 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.
- Patterns in Attribute Selection and Development Reporting in Patient Preference Studies Between 2007-2024: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In addition to clinical and technical considerations, patients' preferences are essential for evaluating interventions such as precision medicine (PM). Objectives: This study aimed to identify and prioritize attributes of precision oncology that are important for patients to develop and validate a standard stated preference instrument. Methods: The key attributes of precision oncology and their related levels were extracted from the systematic literature review and were presented on a validated 5-point Likert scale questionnaire to experts (n = 35). In two rounds of Delphi, participants scored and prioritized the attributes through this personally administered questionnaire to identify the five most important ones to develop a discrete choice experiment (DCE) instrument. The developed DCE questionnaire was subsequently validated, providing a robust and standard instrument for evaluating patients' preferences for precision oncology. Results: Based on the consensus criteria, the final DCE included four attributes and a total of 14 levels, which were access to treatment (easy/not easy), out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures (four levels according to treatment costs in the country), change in life expectancy (LE, six levels from an average gain of three months to four years), and change in quality of life (QoL, improvement or no change). Conclusions: The above-mentioned attributes represent patients' main preferences from the views of the Iranian experts. The developed DCE questionnaire can be used to assess patients' preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) in precision oncology.
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.