ReviewExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2026
Attributes and levels in discrete choice experiments for pharmacy services: A systematic review to inform asthma intervention design.
Review in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Preferences for AI-Enabled Health Care Technologies: Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Reporting Quality Assessment Using the DIRECT Checklist.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Asthma affects over 260 million people worldwide and remains poorly controlled. Pharmacists play an increasing role in management, yet evidence on which pharmacy service attributes patients value is limited. Objective: This review aimed to identify and synthesize the attributes and levels used in discrete choice experiments (DCEs) for patient-centered pharmacy interventions related to asthma. Methods: Following (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for studies published from 1990 to 2025. Eligible studies included patients with asthma, caregivers, clinicians, or members of the general population reporting preference outcomes derived from DCEs or conjoint analyses (CA). Data on study characteristics, attribute development, pretesting, design, analytical models, and behavioral outcomes were extracted. Attributes were grouped into domains. Results: Of the 3287 records, seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Attributes clustered into symptoms, exacerbations, rescue medication use, treatment risks, device convenience, costs, and service processes. Clinical outcomes, especially symptom control and exacerbation prevention, were consistently prioritized. In contrast, pharmacy-specific attributes, including pharmacist counseling, private consultations, and continuity of care, were rarely included. Methodological quality varied, with limited patient involvement in attribute development and inconsistent pretesting procedures. Conclusion: Evidence emphasizes clinical outcomes rather than pharmacy service features in asthma-related DCEs. Future preference studies should incorporate pharmacy-relevant attributes and adopt more standardized, patient-informed methodologies to support patient-centered, pharmacist-led asthma interventions.
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.