ReviewHealth economics review2026
Stated preferences in the Iranian health system: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments and conjoint analysis.
Review in Health economics review, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health to determine preferences and inform policy decisions. However, questions remain about adherence to best practices and validity of the studies. To date, no systematic review has synthesised the application of DCEs in health in Iran. We conducted a systematic review to examine characteristics, methods, quality, and topics of DCEs in Iran.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus. Studies were included if they collected participants' preferences for a health-related topic among relevant stakeholders using DCEs, conjoint analyses, or best-worst scaling. Data was extracted on study design, participants, attribute and choice set development, data collection, and estimation approaches. The quality of each study was assessed against good practice criteria.
resultsThirty studies met the eligibility criteria. The number of DCEs published increased from 2021 onwards. Most studies were conducted in urban areas, particularly in Tehran, the capital city, and focused on health services and workforce. Attributes were generally related to monetary, time, risk, or health outcomes. Pilot testing and qualitative work with target population to inform attribute selection and questionnaire design were conducted inconsistently. Nearly half of the studies used effective designs. However, reporting on key methodological elements such as software used, blocking, and opt-out options was often incomplete. Estimation approaches varied, with conditional logit models being most commonly used.
conclusionsThis is the first systematic review of DCEs on health-related topics in Iran. Although the use of this method is expanding rapidly, gaps remain in questionnaire design, method reporting, and econometric modelling. Future DCEs would benefit from including more diverse populations, improving methodological rigour, and aligning objectives with target populations. Strengthening these aspects will improve the validity and policy relevance of DCEs in Iran.
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.