ArticlePloS one2026
Evidence mapping of preference elicitation for non-pharmaceutical interventions targeting respiratory viral transmission: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNon-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as mask use, physical distancing, business or school closure, and isolation have been central to controlling respiratory viral infections, including influenza, COVID-19, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Understanding the preferences of the public and stakeholders for these interventions is critical to ensure their acceptability, uptake, and effectiveness. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) provide a robust method to quantify how individuals value different attributes of NPIs and the trade-offs they are willing to make. However, evidence from DCEs is fragmented across diseases, populations, and methodological approaches. This scoping review aims to systematically map and synthesise evidence from DCEs examining public and stakeholder preferences for NPIs used in the prevention and control of influenza, COVID-19, and RSV. Specifically, it will: (1) summarise the attributes and attribute levels used in DCEs, and the methods employed to select them; and (2) identify which NPI attributes are most valued by the public and key stakeholders, including patients, healthcare workers, and policymakers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will follow the PRISMA-ScR framework. Comprehensive searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Embase) will identify DCEs evaluating NPIs for influenza, COVID-19, and RSV. Data extraction will capture study characteristics, target populations, attributes, experimental design, and analytical methods. Reporting quality will be appraised using the DIRECT Checklist. Given anticipated heterogeneity, findings will be synthesised narratively. By providing a structured overview of existing DCE evidence, this review will inform the design of future preference studies and guide the development of acceptable and evidence-based NPI strategies for respiratory viral infections. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required. The completed review will be shared through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. Open Science Framework Registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/H36UC.
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.