Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
Smith RD, Sach TH. Contingent valuation: what needs to be done? Health Econ Policy Law. 2010;5:91–111.
Carson RT, Louviere JJ. A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Resour Econ. 2011;49:539–59.
Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:201–26.
Boxall PC, Adamowicz W, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ. 1996;18:243–53.
Ozdemir S. Improving the validity of stated-preference data in health research: the potential of the time-to-think approach. Patient. 2015;8:247–55.
Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? J Environ Econ Manag. 2001;41:179–92.
Muhlbacher AC, Juhnke C, Beyer AR, Garner S. Patient-focused benefit–risk analysis to inform regulatory decisions: the European Union perspective. Value Health. 2016;19:734–40.
Vass CM, Payne K. Using discrete choice experiments to inform the benefit–risk assessment of medicines: are we ready yet? Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:1–21.
Reed SD, Lavezzari G. International experiences in quantitative benefit–risk analysis to support regulatory decisions. Value Health. 2016;19:727–9.
Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser L, 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;14:403–13.
Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–77.
Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton E, Horrocks SA, Vosper J, Swancutt DR, et al. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ. 2012;21:730–41.
Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mulbacher A, Regier D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task. Value Health. 2013;16:3–13.
Louviere J, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4:527–46.
Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19:300–15.
Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42.
Wouters P, van Nimwegen C, van Oostendorp H, van der Spek ED. A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. J Educ Psychol. 2013;105:249–65.
Louviere J. What you don’t know might hurt you: some unresolved issues in the design and analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ Resour Econ. 2006;34:173–88.
Urban GL, Hauser JR, Roberts JH. Prelaunch forecasting of new automobiles. Manag Sci. 1990;36:401–21.
Weinberg B. An information-acceleration-based methodology for developing preproduction forecasts for durable goods: design, development, and initial validation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management; 1993. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12547
Michael DR, Chen SL. Serious games: games that educate, train, and inform. New York: Muska and Lipman/Premier-Trade; 2005.
Annetta LA, Minogue J, Holmes SY, Cheng M-T. Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Comput Educ. 2009;53:74–85.
Bai H, Pan W, Hirumi A, Kebritchi M. Assessing the effectiveness of a 3-D instructional game on improving mathematics achievement and motivation of middle school students. Br J Educ Technol. 2012;43:993–1003.
Garris R, Ahlers R. Games, motivation, and learning: a research and practice model. Simul Gaming. 2002;33:441–67.
Clark M, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:883–902.
Choice Metrics. Ngene User Manual 1.1.1; 2012.
Sawtooth. Sawtooth Software SSI Web 8.3.8; 2012.
Verschueren S, Buffel C, Vander Stichele G. Developing theory-driven, evidence-based serious games for health: framework based on research community insights. JMIR Serious Games. 2019;7:e11565.
Reeve C. Narrative-based serious games. In: Serious games on the move; 2009. p. 73–89.
Nowak KL, Rauh C. The influences of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. J Comput Commun. 2006;11:153–78.
Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Derry HA, McClure JB, Stark A, et al. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:209–14.
Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD. Challenges for designing and implementing decision aids. In: Patient education and counseling, vol. 54; 2004. p. 265–273.
Bateman C. Diversity in game narrative. Only a game; 2005. http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2005/08/diversity_in_ga.html.
Callaghan M, Savin-Baden M, McShane N, Gomez Eguiluz A, Arnab S, Lim T, et al. Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. Br J Educ Technol. 2015;46:391–411.
Devlin N, Shah K, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2017;27:7–22.
Thurstone L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;34:273–86.
McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press: New York; 1973. pp. 105–142.
van der Pol M, Currie G, Kromm S, Ryan M. Specification of the utility function in discrete choice experiments. Value Health. 2014;17:297–301.
Hole AR. Small-sample properties of tests for heteroscedasticity in the conditional logit model. Econ Bull. 2006;3:1–14.
Vass CM, Wright S, Burton M, Payne K. Scale heterogeneity in healthcare discrete choice experiments: a primer. Patient. 2018;11:167–73.
Hole AR. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ. 2007;16:827–40.
Lipkus I, Samsa G, Rimer B. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21:37–44.
Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, van den Broek E, Fasolo B, Katsikopoulos KV. “A 30% chance of rain tomorrow”: how does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts? Risk Anal. 2005;25:623–9.
Vass C, Rigby D, Payne K. “I Was Trying to Do the Maths”: exploring the impact of risk communication in discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2019;12:113–23.
Harrison M, Rigby D, Vass CM, Flynn T, Louviere JJ, Payne K. Risk as an attribute in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review of the literature. Patient. 2014;7:151–70.
Rakotonarivo OS, Schaafsma M, Hockley N. A systematic review of the reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments in valuing non-market environmental goods. J Environ Manag. 2016;183:98–109.
Ratcliffe J, Couzner L, Flynn T, Sawyer M, Stevens K, Brazier J, et al. Valuing Child Health Utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: a feasibility study to compare best-worst scaling discrete-choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9:15–27.
Bridges JFP, Kinter ET, Schmeding A, Rudolph I, Mühlbacher A. Can patients diagnosed with schizophrenia complete choice-based conjoint analysis tasks? Patient. 2011;4:267–75.
Buffel C, van Aalst J, Bangels A-M, Toelen J, Allegaert K, Verschueren S, et al. CliniPup®, a web-based serious game for health to reduce perioperative anxiety and pain in children: a pilot study. JMIR Serious Games. 2019;7:e12431.
Cummings RG, Taylor LO. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev. 1999;89:649–65.
Rigby D, Vass CM, Payne K. Opening the “Black Box”: an overview of methods to investigate the decision-making process in choice-based surveys. Patient. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00385-8.
Ozdemir S, Johnson FR, Hauber AB. Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care. J Health Econ. 2009;28:894–901.
Whittington D, Smith VK, Okorafor A, Liu JL, McPhail A. Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application. J Environ Econ Manag. 1992;22:205–25.
Bosworth R, Taylor LO. Hypothetical bias in choice experiments: Is cheap talk effective at eliminating bias on the intensive and extensive margins of choice? BE J Econ Anal Policy 2012;12.
Alpizar F, Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O. Does context matter more for hypothetical than for actual contributions? Evidence from a natural field experiment. Exp Econ. 2008;11:299–314.
Silva A, Nayga RM, Campbell BL, Park JL. Can perceived task complexity influence cheap talk’s effectiveness in reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice studies? Appl Econ Lett. 2012;19:1711–4.
Ready RC, Champ PA, Lawton JL. Using respondent uncertainty to mitigate hypothetical bias in a stated choice experiment. Land Econ. 2010;86:363–81.
Hess S, Beharry-Borg N. Accounting for latent attitudes in willingness-to-pay studies: the case of coastal water quality improvements in Tobago. Environ Resour Econ. 2012;52:109–31.
Vass CM, Rigby D, Payne K. The role of qualitative research methods in discrete choice experiments: a systematic review and survey of authors. Med Decis Mak. 2017;37:298–313.
Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V. Rationalising the “irrational”: a think aloud study of a discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 2009;18:321–36.