ArticleBMJ public health2026
Stakeholder preferences for multidimensional attributes in the selection of health promotion programmes in Japan: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMJ public health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Health promotion programmes play a critical role in preventing non-communicable diseases, yet their uptake remains limited. The multidimensional attributes of health promotion programmes preferred by various stakeholder groups remain poorly understood. This study aimed to examine the preferences for multidimensional attributes of health promotion programmes across four stakeholder groups: the general public, local government officials, company representatives and healthcare professionals. Methods: We conducted a discrete choice experiment in Japan using a fractional factorial, D-efficient design to evaluate seven attributes (physical, mental and social health, productivity, health disparity, cost and time). Mixed logit models were used to estimate attribute preferences and relative importance (RI). Results: 3243 respondents were included in the main analysis. RI patterns were broadly similar across stakeholder groups, with cost and physical health among the most important attributes across all groups. Company representatives showed slightly higher RI for physical health (0.270) than for cost (0.257). In contrast, healthcare professionals showed higher RI for social health (0.091) than for productivity (0.071). Conclusions: While the RI of some attributes varied by stakeholder group, cost and physical health consistently held the highest RI values across all groups. These findings provide quantitative evidence to support the design of more equitable and effective health promotion programmes.
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.