Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature

  • Mark Harrison
  • Dan Rigby
  • Caroline Vass
  • Terry Flynn
  • Jordan Louviere
  • Katherine Payne
Systematic Review



Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are used to elicit preferences of current and future patients and healthcare professionals about how they value different aspects of healthcare. Risk is an integral part of most healthcare decisions. Despite the use of risk attributes in DCEs consistently being highlighted as an area for further research, current methods of incorporating risk attributes in DCEs have not been reviewed explicitly.


This study aimed to systematically identify published healthcare DCEs that incorporated a risk attribute, summarise and appraise methods used to present and analyse risk attributes, and recommend best practice regarding including, analysing and transparently reporting the methodology supporting risk attributes in future DCEs.

Data Sources

The Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Econlit databases were searched on 18 April 2013 for DCEs that included a risk attribute published since 1995, and on 23 April 2013 to identify studies assessing risk communication in the general (non-DCE) health literature.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Healthcare-related DCEs with a risk attribute mentioned or suggested in the title/abstract were obtained and retained in the final review if a risk attribute meeting our definition was included.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

Extracted data were tabulated and critically appraised to summarise the quality of reporting, and the format, presentation and interpretation of the risk attribute were summarised.


This review identified 117 healthcare DCEs that incorporated at least one risk attribute. Whilst there was some evidence of good practice incorporated into the presentation of risk attributes, little evidence was found that developing methods and recommendations from other disciplines about effective methods and validation of risk communication were systematically applied to DCEs. In general, the reviewed DCE studies did not thoroughly report the methodology supporting the explanation of risk in training materials, the impact of framing risk, or exploring the validity of risk communication.


The primary limitation of this review was that the methods underlying presentation, format and analysis of risk attributes could only be appraised to the extent that they were reported.


Improvements in reporting and transparency of risk presentation from conception to the analysis of DCEs are needed. To define best practice, further research is needed to test how the process of communicating risk affects the way in which people value risk attributes in DCEs.

Supplementary material

40271_2014_48_MOESM1_ESM.docx (207 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 206 kb)


  1. 1.
    Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(1):55–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tversky A, Wakker P. Risk attitudes and decision weights. Econometrica. 1995;63(6):1255–80.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hammitt JK, Graham JD. Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability? J Risk Uncertainty. 1999;18(1):33–62.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Visschers VHM, Meertens RM, Passchier WWF, de Vries NNK. Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Anal. 2009;29(2):267–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risk: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):696–713.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peters E, Hart PS, Fraenkel L. Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(3):432–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corso PS, Hammitt JK, Graham JD. Valuing mortality-risk reduction: using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. J Risk Uncertainty. 2001;23(2):165–84.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4(4):527–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johansson P. Evaluating health risks: an economic approach. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cameron TA, DeShazo JR, Johnson EH. The effect of children on adult demands for health-risk reductions. J Health Econ. 2010;29(3):364–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsuge T, Kishimoto A, Takeuchi K. A choice experiment approach to the valuation of mortality. J Risk Uncertainty. 2005;31(1):73–95.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tinetti ME, McAvay GJ, Fried TR, Allore HG, Salmon JC, Foody JM, et al. Health outcome priorities among competing cardiovascular, fall injury, and medication-related symptom outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(8):1409–16.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pignone MP, Howard K, Brenner AT, Crutchfield TM, Hawley ST, Lewis CL, et al. Comparing 3 techniques for eliciting patient values for decision making about prostate-specific antigen screening: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA Int Med. 2013;173(5):11.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tinetti ME, McAvay GJ, Fried TR, Foody JM, Bianco L, Ginter S, et al. Development of a tool for eliciting patient priority from among competing cardiovascular disease, medication-symptoms, and fall injury outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(4):730–6.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oteng B, Marra F, Lynd LD, Ogilvie G, Patrick D, Marra CA. Evaluating societal preferences for human papillomavirus vaccine and cervical smear test screening programme. Sex Transm Infect. 2011;87(1):52–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sweeting KR, Whitty JA, Scuffham PA, Yelland MJ. Patient preferences for treatment of achilles tendon pain: results from a discrete-choice experiment. Patient. 2011;4(1):45–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pignone MP, Brenner AT, Hawley S, Sheridan SL, Lewis CL, Jonas DE, et al. Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Int Med. 2012;27(1):45–50.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laba TL, Brien JA, Jan S. Understanding rational non-adherence to medications: a discrete choice experiment in a community sample in Australia. BMC Family Practice. 2012;13:61.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boeri M, Longo A, Grisolia JM, Hutchinson WG, Kee F. The role of regret minimisation in lifestyle choices affecting the risk of coronary heart disease. J Health Econ. 2013; 32(1):253–60.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kauf TL, Mohamed AF, Hauber AB, Fetzer D, Ahmad A. Patients’ willingness to accept the risks and benefits of new treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Patient. 2012;5(4):265–78.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guo N, Marra CA, FitzGerald JM, Elwood RK, Anis AH, Marra F. Patient preference for latent tuberculosis infection preventive treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2011;14(6):937–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scalone L, Watson V, Ryan M, Kotsopoulos N, Patel R. Evaluation of patients’ preferences for genital herpes treatment. Sex Transm Dis. 2011;38(9):802–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Rose JM, Donkers B, Essink-Bot M-L, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW. Men’s preferences for prostate cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(3):19.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vlemmix F, Kuitert M, Bais J, Opmeer B, van der Post J, Mol BW, et al. Patient’s willingness to opt for external cephalic version. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2013;34(1):15–21.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Damen TH, de Bekker-Grob EW, Mureau MA, Menke-Pluijmers MB, Seynaeve C, Hofer SO, et al. Patients’ preferences for breast reconstruction: a discrete choice experiment. J Plastic Reconstruct Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(1):75–83.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Regier DA, Diorio C, Ethier MC, Alli A, Alexander S, Boydell KM, et al. Discrete choice experiment to evaluate factors that influence preferences for antibiotic prophylaxis in pediatric oncology. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47470.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marti J. Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(5):533–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tinelli M, Ozolins M, Bath-Hextall F, Williams HC. What determines patient preferences for treating low risk basal cell carcinoma when comparing surgery vs imiquimod? A discrete choice experiment survey from the SINS trial. BMC Dermatol. 2012;12:19.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Johnson FR, Manjunath R, Mansfield CA, Clayton LJ, Hoerger TJ, Zhang P. High-risk individuals’ willingness to pay for diabetes risk-reduction programs. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(6):1351–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Doyle S, Lloyd A, Birt J, Curtis B, Ali S, Godbey K, et al. Willingness to pay for obesity pharmacotherapy. Obesity. 2012;20(10):2019–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fiebig DG, Knox S, Viney R, Haas M, Street DJ. Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products. Health Econ. 2011;20 Suppl 1:35–52.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Walzer S. What do parents want from their child’s asthma treatment? Ther Clin Risk Manage. 2007;3(1):167–75.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chancellor J, Martin M, Liedgens H, Baker MG, Muller-Schwefe GH. Stated preferences of physicians and chronic pain sufferers in the use of classic strong opioids. Value Health. 2012;15(1):106–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lloyd A, McIntosh E, Rabe KF, Williams A. Patient preferences for asthma therapy: a discrete choice experiment. Prim Care Respir J. 2007;16(4):241–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ossa DF, Briggs A, McIntosh E, Cowell W, Littlewood T, Sculpher M. Recombinant erythropoietin for chemotherapy-related anaemia: economic value and health-related quality-of-life assessment using direct utility elicitation and discrete choice experiment methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(3):223–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lloyd A, McIntosh E, Price M. The importance of drug adverse effects compared with seizure control for people with epilepsy: a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(11):1167–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shafey M, Lupichuk SM, Do T, Owen C, Stewart DA. Preferences of patients and physicians concerning treatment options for relapsed follicular lymphoma: a discrete choice experiment. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011;46(7):962–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Essers BA, van Helvoort-Postulart D, Prins MH, Neumann M, Dirksen CD. Does the inclusion of a cost attribute result in different preferences for the surgical treatment of primary basal cell carcinoma? A comparison of two discrete-choice experiments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(6):507–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Salkeld G, Solomon M, Short L, Ryan M, Ward JE. Evidence-based consumer choice: a case study in colorectal cancer screening. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2003;27(4):449–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    McTaggart-Cowan HM, Shi P, Fitzgerald JM, Anis AH, Kopec JA, Bai TR, et al. An evaluation of patients’ willingness to trade symptom-free days for asthma-related treatment risks: a discrete choice experiment. J Asthma. 2008;45(8):630–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Howard K, Salkeld G. Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value Health. 2009;12(2):354–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Swinburn P, Lloyd A, Ali S, Hashmi N, Newal D, Najib H. Preferences for antimuscarinic therapy for overactive bladder. BJU Int. 2011;108(6):868–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lloyd A, Penson D, Dewilde S, Kleinman L. Eliciting patient preferences for hormonal therapy options in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2008;11(2):153–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hall J, Kenny P, King M, Louviere J, Viney R, Yeoh A. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination. Health Econ. 2002;11(5):457–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Hofman R, Donkers B, van Ballegooijen M, Helmerhorst TJM, Raat H, et al. Girls’ preferences for HPV vaccination: a discrete choice experiment. Vaccine. 2010;28(41):6692–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ratcliffe J, Buxton M, McGarry T, Sheldon R, Chancellor J. Patients’ preferences for characteristics associated with treatments for osteoarthritis. Rheumatology. 2004;43(3):337–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pereira CC, Mulligan M, Bridges JF, Bishai D. Determinants of influenza vaccine purchasing decision in the US: a conjoint analysis. Vaccine. 2011;29(7):1443–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lee WC, Joshi AV, Woolford S, Sumner M, Brown M, Hadker N, et al. Physicians’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates in the treatment of Haemophilia with inhibitors: a discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia. 2008;14(3):454–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Scalone L, Mantovani LG, Borghetti F, Von MS, Gringeri A. Patients’, physicians’, and pharmacists’ preferences towards coagulation factor concentrates to treat haemophilia with inhibitors: results from the COHIBA Study. Haemophilia. 2009;15(2):473–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mantovani LG, Monzini MS, Mannucci PM, Scalone L, Villa M, Gringeri A, et al. Differences between patients’, physicians’ and pharmacists’ preferences for treatment products in haemophilia: a discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia. 2005;11(6):589–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Espelid I, Cairns J, Askildsen JE, Qvist V, Gaarden T, Tveit AB. Preferences over dental restorative materials among young patients and dental professionals. Eur J Oral Sci. 2006;114(1):15–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lee A, Gin T, Lau AS, Ng FF. A comparison of patients’ and health care professionals’ preferences for symptoms during immediate postoperative recovery and the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg. 2005;100(1):87–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Eberth B, Watson V, Ryan M, Hughes J, Barnett G. Does one size fit all? Investigating heterogeneity in men’s preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment using mixed logit analysis. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(6):707–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    van Dam L, Hol L, de Bekker-Grob EW, Steyerberg EW, Kuipers EJ, Habbema JD, et al. What determines individuals’ preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(1):150–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Torbica A, Fattore G. Understanding the impact of economic evidence on clinical decision making: a discrete choice experiment in cardiology. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(10):1536–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nayaradou M, Berchi C, Dejardin O, Launoy G. Eliciting population preferences for mass colorectal cancer screening organization. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(2):224–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Griffith JM, Lewis CL, Hawley S, Sheridan SL, Pignone MP. Randomized trial of presenting absolute v. relative risk reduction in the elicitation of patient values for heart disease prevention with conjoint analysis. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(2):167–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Weston A, Fitzgerald P. Discrete choice experiment to derive willingness to pay for methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy versus simple excision surgery in basal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(18):1195–208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, Falvey H. Treatment preferences and medication adherence of people with type 2 diabetes using oral glucose-lowering agents. Diabet Med. 2009;26(4):416–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Schaarschmidt ML, Schmieder A, Umar N, Terris D, Goebeler M, Goerdt S, et al. Patient preferences for psoriasis treatments: process characteristics can outweigh outcome attributes. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147(11):1285–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schmieder A, Schaarschmidt ML, Umar N, Terris DD, Goebeler M, Goerdt S, et al. Comorbidities significantly impact patients’ preferences for psoriasis treatments. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(3):363–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Watson ME, Johnson FR, Hernandez JE. Benefits, risk, and uncertainty: preferences of antiretroviral-naive African Americans for HIV treatments. Aids Patient Care STDS. 2009;23(1):29–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481):453–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Salisbury LC, Feinberg FM. Alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in decision research: theory, measurement, and experimental test. Mark Sci. 2010;29(1):1–17.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, Wasi N. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark Sci. 2010;29(3):393–421.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Muhlbacher AC, Lincke HJ, Nubling M. Evaluating patients’ preferences for multiple myeloma therapy, a Discrete-Choice-Experiment. Psychosoc Med. 2008; 5:Doc10.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Shackley P, Slack R, Michaels J. Vascular patients’ preferences for local treatment: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Services Res Policy. 2001;6(3):151–7.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bridges JF, Searle SC, Selck FW, Martinson NA. Designing family-centered male circumcision services: a conjoint analysis approach. Patient. 2012;5(2):101–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Goto R, Takahashi Y, Ida T. Changes in smokers’ attitudes toward intended cessation attempts in Japan. Value Health. 2011;14(5):785–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ashcroft DM, Seston E, Griffiths CE. Trade-offs between the benefits and risks of drug treatment for psoriasis: a discrete choice experiment with U.K. dermatologists. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(6):1236–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yeung RYT, Smith RD, Mcghee SM. Willingness to pay and size of health benefit: an integrated model to test for ‘sensitivity to scale’. Health Econ. 2003;12(9):791–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Heberlein TA, Wilson MA, Bishop RC, Schaeffer NC. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage. 2005;50(1):1–22.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ. 2001;19(2):173–210.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Mansfield C, Hass S, Miller DW, Siegel CA, et al. Crohn’s disease patients’ risk–benefit preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(3):769–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Johnson FR, Van Houtven G, Ozdemir S, Hass S, White J, Francis G, et al. Multiple sclerosis patients’ benefit–risk preferences: serious adverse event risks versus treatment efficacy. J Neurol. 2009;256(4):554–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Johnson FR, Hauber AB, Ozdemir S, Lynd L. Quantifying women’s stated benefit-risk trade-off preferences for IBS treatment outcomes. Value Health. 2010;13(4):418–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Telser H, Zweifel P. Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis. Health Econ. 2002;11(2):129–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Telser H, Zweifel P. Validity of discrete-choice experiments evidence for health risk reduction. Appl Econ. 2007;39(1):68–78.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Berry D, Raynor T, Knapp P, Bersellini E. Over the counter medicines and the need for immediate action: a further evaluation of European Commission recommended wordings for communicating risk. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;53(2):129–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Cuite CL, Weinstein ND, Emmons K, Colditz G. A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(3):377–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    France J, Keen C, Bowyer S. Communicating risk to emergency department patients with chest pain. Emerg Med J. 2008;25(5):276–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychol. 2009;28(2):210–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Gyrd-Hansen D, Halvorsen P, Nexoe J, Nielsen J, Stovring H, Kristiansen I. Joint and separate evaluation of risk reduction: impact on sensitivity to risk reduction magnitude in the context of 4 different risk information formats. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(1):E1–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hilton NZ, Carter AM, Harris GT, Sharpe AJB. Does using nonnumerical terms to describe risk aid violence risk communication? Clinician agreement and decision making. J Interpers Violence. 2008;23(2):171–88.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons K. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. J Health Commun. 2006;11(2):167–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Brewer NT, Tzeng JP, Lillie SE, Edwards AS, Peppercorn JM, Rimer BK. Health literacy and cancer risk perception: implications for genomic risk communication. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(2):157–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Davis JJ. Consumers’ preferences for the communication of risk information in drug advertising: most consumers want drug side-effect information to be rich in detail and easily accessible. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26(3):863–70.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Steiner MJ, Dalebout S, Condon S, Dominik R, Trussell J. Understanding risk: a randomized controlled trial of communicating contraceptive effectiveness. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(4):709–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Carling CLL, Kristoffersen DT, Montori VM, Herrin J, Schunemann HJ, Treweek S, et al. The effect of alternative summary statistics for communicating risk reduction on decisions about taking statins: a randomized trial. PLoS Med. 2009;6(8):e1000134.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Cheung YB, Wee HL, Thumboo J, Goh C, Pietrobon R, Toh HC, et al. Risk communication in clinical trials: a cognitive experiment and a survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2010;10:55.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Emmons KM, Wong M, Puleo E, Weinstein N, Fletcher R, Colditz G. Tailored computer-based cancer risk communication: correcting colorectal cancer risk perception. J Health Commun. 2004;9(2):127–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: a cross-cultural comparison. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(12):2196–202.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Using plausible group sizes to communicate information about medical risks. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(2):245–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Graham PH, Martin RM, Browne LH. Communicating breast cancer treatment complication risks: when words are likely to fail. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2009;5(3):193–9.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Ilic D, Murphy K, Green S. Risk communication and prostate cancer: identifying which summary statistics are best understood by men. Am J Mens Health. 2012;6(6):497–504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Knapp P, Raynor DK, Woolf E, Gardner PH, Carrigan N, McMillan B. Communicating the risk of side effects to patients an evaluation of UK regulatory recommendations. Drug Saf. 2009;32(10):837–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Miron-Shatz T, Hanoch Y, Graef D, Sagi M. Presentation format affects comprehension and risk assessment: the case of prenatal screening. J Health Commun. 2009;14(5):439–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Pighin S, Savadori L, Barilli E, Rumiati R, Bonalumi S, Ferrari M, et al. Using comparison scenarios to improve prenatal risk communication. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(1):48–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Sheridan SL, Pignone MP, Lewis CL. A randomized comparison of patients’ understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(11):884–92.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Fair AKI, Murray PG, Thomas A, Cobain MR. Using hypothetical data to assess the effect of numerical format and context on the perception of coronary heart disease risk. Am J Health Promot. 2008;22(4):291–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Dolan JG, Iadarola S. Risk communication formats for low probability events: an exploratory study of patient preferences. BMC Med Inform Decision Making. 2008;8:14.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Edwards A, Thomas R, Williams R, Ellner AL, Brown P, Elwyn G. Presenting risk information to people with diabetes: evaluating effects and preferences for different formats by a web-based randomised controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(3):336–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Fortin JM, Hirota LK, Bond BE, O’Connor AM, Col NF. Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: a descriptive pilot study. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2001;1:2.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET. Effective communication of risks to young adults: using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2011;17(3):270–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CA. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(6):459–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Sprague D, LaVallie DL, Wolf FM, Jacobsen C, Sayson K, Buchwald D. Influence of graphic format on comprehension of risk information among american indians. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(3):437–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Berry DC, Michas IC, Bersellini E. Communicating information about medication: the benefits of making it personal. Psychol Health. 2003;18(1):127–39.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Gurmankin AD, Baron J, Annstrong K. The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Med Decis Making. 2004;24(3):265–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A. Presenting research risks and benefits to parents: does format matter? Anesth Analg. 2010;111(3):718–23.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A. The effect of format on parents’ understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun. 2010;15(5):487–501.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Ulph F, Townsend E, Glazebrook C. How should risk be communicated to children: a cross-sectional study comparing different formats of probability information. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2009;9:26.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Young S, Oppenheimer DM. Effect of communication strategy on personal risk perception and treatment adherence intentions. Psychol Health Med. 2009;14(4):430–42.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Fraenkel L, Wittink DR, Concato J, Fried T. Are preferences for cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors influenced by the certainty effect? J Rheumatol. 2004;31(3):591–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Whittington D. Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries. Environ Resour Econ. 2002;22(1–2):323–67.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Learner EE, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. US Department of Commerce; 1993.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Swait J. Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods. US Department of Commerce; 1998.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A. Psychology of prediction. Psychol Rev. 1973;80(4):237–51.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Edwards A, Elwyn G. Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences. Qual Health Care. 2001;10:I9–13.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47(2):263–91.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science. 2011;333(6048):1393–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2007;8:53–96.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117(11):916–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Bobbio M, Demichelis B, Giustetto G. Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians’ willingness to prescribe. Lancet. 1994;343(8907):1209–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Sorensen L, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS, Nexoe J, Nielsen JB. Laypersons’ understanding of relative risk reductions: randomised cross-sectional study. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2008;8:31.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    CONSORT Group. The CONSORT Statement. http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/. Accessed 8 Nov 2011.
  130. 130.
    Krupnick A, Alberini A, Cropper M, Simon N, O’Brien B, Goeree R, et al. Age, health and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: a contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents. J Risk Uncertainty. 2002;24(2):161–86.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(19):1436–43.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Kahneman D, Sugden R. Experienced utility as a standard of policy evaluation. Environ Resour Econ. 2005;32(1):161–81.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Weinstein MC, Shepard DS, Pliskin JS. The economic value of changing mortality probabilities: a decision-theoretic approach. Q J Econ. 1980;94(2):373–96.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Viscusi WK. A Bayesian perspective on biases in risk perception. Econ Lett. 1985;17(1–2):59–62.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Tsuchiya A, Dolan P. The QALY model and individual preferences for health states and health profiles over time: a systematic review of the literature. Med Decis Making. 2005;25(4):460–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Prosser LA, Wittenberg E. Do risk attitudes differ across domains and respondent types? Med Decis Making. 2007;27(3):281–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, Weinstein MC. The relationship between risk attitude and treatment choice in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(6):506–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Van Houtven G, Johnson FR, Kilambi V, Hauber AB. Eliciting benefit–risk preferences and probability-weighted utility using choice-format conjoint analysis. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(3):469–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Spiegelhalter D. Quantifying uncertainty. In: Skinns L, Scott M, Cox T, editors. Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 17–33.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M, Gigerenzer G. Do icon arrays help reduce denominator neglect? Med Decis Making. 2010;30(6):672–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21(6):730–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Seston EM, Ashcroft DM, Griffiths CE. Balancing the benefits and risks of drug treatment: a stated-preference, discrete choice experiment with patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(9):1175–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Hauber AB, Johnson FR, Grotzinger KM, Ozdemir S. Patients’ benefit-risk preferences for chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura therapies. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44(3):479–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Beam C, Medjedovic J, Mauskopf J. Patient preferences and assessment of likely adherence to hepatitis C virus treatment. J Viral Hepat. 2011;18(9):619–27.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Mohamed AF, Hauber AB, Neary MP. Patient benefit-risk preferences for targeted agents in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(11):2011.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Schenkel B, Lofland JH, Martin S. The value to patients of reducing lesion severity in plaque psoriasis. J Dermatol Treat. 2011;22(5):266–75.Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Hodgkins P, Swinburn P, Solomon D, Yen L, Dewilde S, Lloyd A. Patient preferences for first-line oral treatment for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis: a discrete-choice experiment. Patient. 2012;5(1):33–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Arden NK, Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, Peloso PM, Watson DJ, et al. How do physicians weigh benefits and risks associated with treatments in patients with osteoarthritis in the United Kingdom? J Rheumatol. 2012;39(5):1056–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Lathia N, Isogai PK, Walker SE, De AC, Cheung MC, Hoch JS, et al. Eliciting patients’ preferences for outpatient treatment of febrile neutropenia: a discrete choice experiment. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(1):245–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Hauber AB, Arden NK, Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, Peloso PM, Watson DJ, et al. A discrete-choice experiment of United Kingdom patients’ willingness to risk adverse events for improved function and pain control in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(2):289–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Aristides M, Weston AR, Fitzgerald P, Le RC, Maniadakis N. Patient preference and willingness-to-pay for Humalog Mix25 relative to Humulin 30/70: a multicountry application of a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2004;7(4):442–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Colley L, Gill S, Simpson SH, Meneilly GS, et al. A valuation of patients’ willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery in diabetes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;3:359–66.Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Howard K, Salkeld G, Pignone M, Hewett P, Cheung P, Olsen J, et al. Preferences for CT colonography and colonoscopy as diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1146–52.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Faggioli G, Scalone L, Mantovani LG, Borghetti F, Stella A. PREFER study group. Preferences of patients, their family caregivers and vascular surgeons in the choice of abdominal aortic aneurysms treatment options: the PREFER study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;42(1):26–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Gidengil C, Lieu TA, Payne K, Rusinak D, Messonnier M, Prosser LA. Parental and societal values for the risks and benefits of childhood combination vaccines. Vaccine. 2012;30(23):3445–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Augustovski F, Beratarrechea A, Irazola V, Rubinstein F, Tesolin P, Gonzalez J, et al. Patient preferences for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete-choice experiment. Value Health. 2013;16(2):385–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, Grant A. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ. 1998;7(7):595–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Bryan S, Roberts T, Heginbotham C, McCallum A. QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey. Health Econ. 2002;11(8):679–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Bishop AJ, Marteau TM, Armstrong D, Chitty LS, Longworth L, Buxton MJ, et al. Women and health care professionals’ preferences for Down’s syndrome screening tests: a conjoint analysis study. BJOG. 2004;111(8):775–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Lewis SM, Cullinane FM, Carlin JB, Halliday JL. Women’s and health professionals’ preferences for prenatal testing for Down syndrome in Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;46(3):205–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Lewis SM, Cullinane FN, Bishop AJ, Chitty LS, Marteau TM, Halliday JL. A comparison of Australian and UK obstetricians’ and midwives’ preferences for screening tests for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2006;26(1):60–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Pols HA, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Osteoporos Int. 2008;7:1029–37.Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    Bunge EM, de Bekker-Grob EW, van Biezen FC, Essink-Bot ML, de Koning HJ. Patients’ preferences for scoliosis brace treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Spine. 2010;35(1):57–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Watson V, Ryan M, Watson E. Valuing experience factors in the provision of Chlamydia screening: an application to women attending the family planning clinic. Value Health. 2009;12(4):621–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Essink-Bot ML, Meerding WJ, Koes BW, Steyerberg EW. Preferences of GPs and patients for preventive osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(3):211–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Kruijshaar ME, Essink-Bot ML, Donkers B, Looman CW, Siersema PD, Steyerberg EW. A labelled discrete choice experiment adds realism to the choices presented: preferences for surveillance tests for Barrett esophagus. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:31.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Hol L, de Bekker-Grob EW, van Dam L, Donkers B, Kuipers EJ, Habbema JD, et al. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(6):972–80.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Wirostko B, Beusterien K, Grinspan J, Ciulla T, Gonder J, Barsdorf A, et al. Patient preferences in the treatment of diabetic retinopathy. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:229–37.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Flood EM, Ryan KJ, Rousculp MD, Beusterien KM, Divino VM, Block SL, et al. Parent preferences for pediatric influenza vaccine attributes. Clin Pediatr. 2011;50(4):338–47.Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Damman OC, Spreeuwenberg P, Rademakers J, Hendriks M. Creating compact comparative health care information: what are the key quality attributes to present for cataract and total hip or knee replacement surgery? Med Decis Making. 2012;32(2):287–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Tong BC, Huber JC, Ascheim DD, Puskas JD, Ferguson TB Jr, Blackstone EH, et al. Weighting composite endpoints in clinical trials: essential evidence for the heart team. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94(6):1908–13.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Sung L, Alibhai SM, Ethier MC, Teuffel O, Cheng S, Fisman D, et al. Discrete choice experiment produced estimates of acceptable risks of therapeutic options in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):627–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Marang-vandeMheen PJ, Elsinga J, Otten W, Versluijs M, Smeets HJ, Vree R, et al. The relative importance of quality of care information when choosing a hospital for surgical treatment: a hospital choice experiment. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(6):816–27.Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Watson V, Carnon A, Ryan M, Cox D. Involving the public in priority setting: a case study using discrete choice experiments. J Public Health. 2012;34(2):253–60.Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Bijlenga D, Bonsel GJ, Birnie E. Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes. Health Econ. 2011;20(11):1392–406.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Bijlenga D, Birnie E, Mol BW, Bonsel GJ. Obstetrical outcome valuations by patients, professionals, and laypersons: differences within and between groups using three valuation methods. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11:93.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Palumbo A, De La FP, Rodriguez M, Sanchez F, Martinez-Salazar J, Munoz M, et al. Willingness to pay and conjoint analysis to determine women’s preferences for ovarian stimulating hormones in the treatment of infertility in Spain. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1790–8.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Muhlbacher AC, Nubling M. Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of multiple myeloma. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):193–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Manjunath R, Yang JC, Ettinger AB. Patients’ preferences for treatment outcomes of add-on antiepileptic drugs: a conjoint analysis. Epilepsy Behav. 2012;24(4):474–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Kinsler JJ, Cunningham WE, Nurena CR, Nadjat-Haiem C, Grinsztejn B, Casapia M, et al. Using conjoint analysis to measure the acceptability of rectal microbicides among men who have sex with men in four South American cities. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(6):1436–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    King MT, Viney R, Smith DP, Hossain I, Street D, Savage E, et al. Survival gains needed to offset persistent adverse treatment effects in localised prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(4):638–45.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Burnett HF, Regier DA, Feldman BM, Miller FA, Ungar WJ. Parents’ preferences for drug treatments in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a discrete choice experiment. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64(9):1382–91.Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Bridges JF, Mohamed AF, Finnern HW, Woehl A, Hauber AB. Patients’ preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a conjoint analysis. Lung Cancer. 2012;77(1):224–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Lee SJ, Newman PA, Comulada WS, Cunningham WE, Duan N. Use of conjoint analysis to assess HIV vaccine acceptability: feasibility of an innovation in the assessment of consumer health-care preferences. Int J STD AIDS. 2012;23(4):235–41.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    Wittink MN, Morales KH, Cary M, Gallo JJ, Bartels SJ. Towards personalizing treatment for depression: developing treatment values markers. Patient. 2013;6(1):35–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Zimmermann TM, Clouth J, Elosge M, Heurich M, Schneider E, Wilhelm S, et al. Patient preferences for outcomes of depression treatment in Germany: a choice-based conjoint analysis study. J Affect Disord. 2013;148:210–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Mohamed AF, Johnson FR, Hauber AB, Lescrauwaet B, Masterson A. Physicians’ stated trade-off preferences for chronic hepatitis B treatment outcomes in Germany, France, Spain, Turkey, and Italy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;24(4):419–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    Petrou S, McIntosh E. Women’s preferences for attributes of first-trimester miscarriage management: a stated preference discrete-choice experiment. Value Health. 2009;12(4):551–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Sadique MZ, Devlin N, Edmunds WJ, Parkin D. The effect of perceived risks on the demand for vaccination: results from a discrete choice experiment. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(2):e54149.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Aristides M, Chen J, Schulz M, Williamson E, Clarke S, Grant K. Conjoint analysis of a new chemotherapy: willingness to pay and preference for the features of raltitrexed versus standard therapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;11:775–84.Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    Watson V, Ryan M, Brown CT, Barnett G, Ellis BW, Emberton M. Eliciting preferences for drug treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2004;172(6 Pt 1):2321–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Fraenkel L, Constantinescu F, Oberto-Medina M, Wittink DR. Women’s preferences for prevention of bone loss. J Rheumatol. 2005;32(6):1086–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  193. 193.
    Fraenkel L, Gulanski B, Wittink DR. Preference for hip protectors among older adults at high risk for osteoporotic fractures. J Rheumatol. 2006;33(10):2064–8.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    Goto R, Nishimura S, Ida T. Discrete choice experiment of smoking cessation behaviour in Japan. Tobacco Control. 2007;16(5):336–43.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Harrison
    • 1
  • Dan Rigby
    • 2
  • Caroline Vass
    • 1
  • Terry Flynn
    • 3
  • Jordan Louviere
    • 3
  • Katherine Payne
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Health Economics, Institute of Population Health, 4th floor, Jean McFarlane Building, University PlaceThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Economics, School of Social Sciences, Arthur Lewis BuildingThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  3. 3.Institute for Choice, UniSA Business SchoolNorth SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations