ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2026
Stroke survivors' preferences for recovery-promoting drugs: development and piloting of a discrete choice experiment.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundRecovery-promoting drugs (RPDs) offer a pharmacological approach to improve motor recovery in stroke survivors. Investigating stroke survivors' preferences for taking RPDs would allow preferences to be considered during development of intervention protocols and optimise participant adherence. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot a robust discrete choice experiment (DCE) that examines stroke survivors' preferences for RPDs in combination with physical training to improve motor recovery. Pilot objectives were to assess the: (1) effectiveness of the data collection strategy; (2) effectiveness of the survey instrument design; and (3) robustness of the discrete choice experiment design.
methodsAn online DCE with two-alternative choice tasks consisting of six attributes (efficacy, out-of-pocket cost, side effects, treatment duration, dosage, and risk) depicting a stroke rehabilitation program involving RPDs. Respondents completed eleven choice tasks each: nine choice tasks divided into four blocks, plus a dominant choice and duplicate task. Participants were community-dwelling Australian stroke survivors. Outcomes included measures of data completeness, choice validity, and content validity. Conditional logit model analysis was used to estimate the marginal willingness-to-pay, and β coefficients for attributes and levels.
resultsSeventy-three stroke survivors completed the online DCE, with a survey completion rate of 89%. The survey instrument design was effective, with 94.5% and 84.9% respondents passing the dominant and duplicate choice tasks respectively. The DCE design was robust with clear and appropriate attributes and levels, accurate choice tasks and experimental design.
conclusionsSystematic development and piloting of this DCE has confirmed its robustness and feasibility. This study provides an example of robust procedures and reporting requirements for developing and piloting robust discrete choice experiments.
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.