Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Accounting for preference heterogeneity is a growing analytical practice in health-related discrete choice experiments (DCEs). As heterogeneity may be examined from different stakeholder perspectives with different methods, identifying the breadth of these methodological approaches and understanding the differences are major steps to provide guidance on good research practices.

Objectives

Our objective was to systematically summarize current practices that account for preference heterogeneity based on the published DCEs related to healthcare.

Methods

This systematic review is part of the project led by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) health preference research special interest group. The systematic review conducted systematic searches on the PubMed, OVID, and Web of Science databases, as well as on two recently published reviews, to identify articles. The review included health-related DCE articles published between 1 January 2000 and 30 March 2020. All the included articles also presented evidence on preference heterogeneity analysis based on either explained or unexplained factors or both.

Results

Overall, 342 of the 2202 (16%) articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for extraction. The trend showed that analyses of preference heterogeneity increased substantially after 2010 and that such analyses mainly examined heterogeneity due to observable or unobservable factors in individual characteristics. Heterogeneity through observable differences (i.e., explained heterogeneity) is identified among 131 (40%) of the 342 articles and included one or more interactions between an attribute variable and an observable characteristic of the respondent. To capture unobserved heterogeneity (i.e., unexplained heterogeneity), the studies largely estimated either a mixed logit (n = 205, 60%) or a latent-class logit (n = 112, 32.7%) model. Few studies (n = 38, 11%) explored scale heterogeneity or heteroskedasticity.

Conclusions

Providing preference heterogeneity evidence in health-related DCEs has been found as an increasingly used practice among researchers. In recent studies, controlling for unexplained preference heterogeneity has been seen as a common practice rather than explained ones (e.g., interactions), yet a lack of providing methodological details has been observed in many studies that might impact the quality of analysis. As heterogeneity can be assessed from different stakeholder perspectives with different methods, researchers should become more technically pronounced to increase confidence in the results and improve the ability of decision makers to act on the preference evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Within 2000–2001, there were no studies among the curated articles

  2. Both MXL/RPL and LC are mixed models that control for unexplained preference heterogeneity by estimating a distribution of preference around each estimated coefficient. We separated mixed logit/random parameter logits and latent class models to be persistent with the health preference literature and previous systematic reviews on healthcare DCEs (Soekhai et al. [2], de Bekker-Grob et al. [8])

  3. Detailed discussion about the classical and Bayesian estimation approach of MXL/RPL can be found in the paper by Huber and Train [98].

References

  1. Zhou M, Thayer WM, Bridges JFP. Using latent class analysis to model preference heterogeneity in health: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:175–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:201–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wright SJ, Vass CM, Sim G, et al. Accounting for scale heterogeneity in healthcare-related discrete choice experiments when comparing stated preferences: a systematic review. Patient. 2018;11:475–88.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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;2:55–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Colombo S, Hanley N, Louviere JJ. Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture. Agric Econ. 2009;40:307–22.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Flynn TN, Yoo HI, et al. Key issues and potential solutions for understanding healthcare preference heterogeneity free from patient-level scale confounds. Patient. 2018;11:463–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vass C, Boeri M, Karim S, et al. Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Discrete-Choice Experiments: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report. Value in Health. 2022;25:685–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:883–902.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. The EndNote Team. EndNote. EndNote X9 ed. Philadelphia: Clarivate; 2013.

  13. Mansfield C, Sikirica MV, Pugh A, et al. Patient preferences for attributes of type 2 diabetes mellitus medications in Germany and Spain: an online discrete-choice experiment survey. Diabetes Therapy. 2017;8:1365–78.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Manski CF. The structure of random utility models. Theor Decis. 1977;8:229.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Craig BM, de Bekker-Grob EW, González JM, et al. A guide to observable differences in stated preference evidence. Patient. 2022;15(3):329–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Marley AAJ. Best-worst scaling: theory, methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Orme BK. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison: Research Publishers; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Craig BM, Rand K, Hartman JD. Preference paths and their Kaizen tasks for small samples. Patient. 2022;15(2):187–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Craig BM, Busschbach JJ, Salomon JA. Modeling ranking, time trade-off, and visual analog scale values for EQ-5D health states: a review and comparison of methods. Med Care. 2009;47:634–41.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Wijnen BFM, Van Engelen RPLB, Ostermann J, et al. A discrete choice experiment to investigate patient preferences for HIV testing programs in Bogota, Colombia. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019;19:195–201.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Goossens AJ, Cheung KL, Sijstermans E, et al. A discrete choice experiment to assess patients’ preferences for HIV treatment in the rural population in Colombia. J Med Econ. 2020;8:1.

    Google Scholar 

  22. de Bekker-Grob EW, Bliemer MCJ, Donkers B, et al. Patients’ and urologists’ preferences for prostate cancer treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2013;109:633–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Sijstermans E, Cheung KL, Goossens AJ, et al. A discrete choice experiment to assess patients’ preferences for HIV treatment in the urban population in Colombia. J Med Econ. 2020;23(8):803–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cunningham CE, Barwick M, Short K, et al. Modeling the mental health practice change preferences of educators: a discrete-choice conjoint experiment. School Ment Health. 2014;6:1–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cunningham CE, Kostrzewa L, Rimas H, et al. Modeling organizational justice improvements in a pediatric health service. Patient. 2013;6:45–59.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cunningham CE, Walker JR, Eastwood JD, et al. Modeling mental health information preferences during the early adult years: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. J Health Commun. 2014;19:413–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cunningham CE, Henderson J, Niccols A, et al. Preferences for evidence-based practice dissemination in addiction agencies serving women: a discrete-choice conjoint experiment. Addiction. 2012;107:1512–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Cunningham CE, Barwick M, Rimas H, et al. Modeling the decision of mental health providers to implement evidence-based children’s mental health services: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2018;45:302–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cunningham CE, Deal K, Rimas H, et al. Modeling the information preferences of parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2008;36:1123–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cunningham CE, Rimas H, Chen Y, et al. Modeling parenting programs as an interim service for families waiting for children’s mental health treatment. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2015;44:616–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cunningham CE, Deal K, Neville A, et al. Modeling the problem-based learning preferences of McMaster University undergraduate medical students using a discrete choice conjoint experiment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2006;11:245–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ratcliffe J, Van Haselen R, Buxton M, et al. Assessing patients’ preferences for characteristics associated with homeopathic and conventional treatment of asthma: a conjoint analysis study. Thorax. 2002;57:503–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Michaels-Igbokwe C, Terris-Prestholt F, Lagarde M, et al. Young people’s preferences for family planning service providers in Rural Malawi: a discrete choice experiment. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(12): e0143287.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Marshall DA, MacDonald KV, Heidenreich S, et al. The value of diagnostic testing for parents of children with rare genetic diseases. Genet Med. 2019;21:2798–806.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kjaer T, Bech M, Kronborg C, et al. Public preferences for establishing nephrology facilities in Greenland: estimating willingness-to-pay using a discrete choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14:739–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Grisolía JM, Longo A, Boeri M, et al. Trading off dietary choices, physical exercise and cardiovascular disease risks. Soc Sci Med. 2013;93:130–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hole AR, Kolstad JR. Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment. Empirical Econ. 2012;42:445–69.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Craig BM, de Bekker-Grob EW, González Sepúlveda JM, et al. A guide to observable differences in stated preference evidence. Patient. 2022;15(3):329–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Greene WH, Hensher DA. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transport Res Part B Methodol. 2003;37:681–98.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wedel M, Kamakura W, Arora N, et al. Discrete and continuous representations of unobserved heterogeneity in choice modeling. Mark Lett. 1999;10:219–32.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Vass CM, Wright S, Burton M, et al. Scale heterogeneity in healthcare discrete choice experiments: a primer. Patient. 2018;11:167–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mulhern B, Norman R, Lourenco RD, et al. Investigating the relative value of health and social care related quality of life using a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2019;233:28–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J, Shulver W, et al. Investigating the preferences of older people for telehealth as a new model of health care service delivery: a discrete choice experiment. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23:301–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kaambwa B, Lancsar E, McCaffrey N, et al. Investigating consumers’ and informal carers’ views and preferences for consumer directed care: a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2015;140:81–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ride J, Lancsar E. Women’s preferences for treatment of perinatal depression and anxiety: a discrete choice experiment. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(6): e0156629.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Luyten J, Kessels R, Goos P, et al. Public preferences for prioritizing preventive and curative health care interventions: a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2015;18:224–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Koopmanschap MA, Stolk EA, Koolman X. Dear policy maker: have you made up your mind? A discrete choice experiment among policy makers and other health professionals. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:198–204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sawamura K, Sano H, Nakanishi M. Japanese public long-term care insured: preferences for future long-term care facilities, including relocation, waiting times, and individualized care. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16(4):350.e9-20.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Paolucci F, Mentzakis E, Defechereux T, et al. Equity and efficiency preferences of health policy makers in China—a stated preference analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30:1059–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Moise N, Wood D, Cheung YKK, et al. Patient preferences for personalized (N-of-1) trials: a conjoint analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;102:12–22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Walker R, Morton R, Palmer S, et al. Patient preferences for dialysis modalities: a discrete-choice experiment. Nephrology. 2017;22:48.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Arbiol J, Yabe M, Nomura H, et al. Using discrete choice modeling to evaluate the preferences and willingness to pay for leptospirosis vaccine. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2015;11:1046–56.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Kruk ME, Riley PL, Palma AM, et al. How can the health system retain women in HIV treatment for a lifetime? A discrete choice experiment in Ethiopia and Mozambique. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(8): e0160764.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Chu L-W, So JC, Wong L-C, et al. Community end-of-life care among Chinese older adults living in nursing homes. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2014;14:273–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hess S. Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond. In: Hess S, Daly AJ, editors. Handbook of choice modelling. New York: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Van Puyvelde S, Caers R, Du Bois C, et al. Does organizational ownership matter? Objectives of employees in public, nonprofit and for-profit nursing homes. Appl Econ. 2015;47:2500–13.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Kjae T, Gyrd-Hansen D. Preference heterogeneity and choice of cardiac rehabilitation program: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy. 2008;85:124–32.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ikenwilo D, Heidenreich S, Ryan M, et al. The best of both worlds: an example mixed methods approach to understand men’s preferences for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms. Patient. 2018;11:55–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Vennedey V, Derman SHM, Hiligsmann M, et al. Patients’ preferences in periodontal disease treatment elicited alongside an IQWiG benefit assessment: a feasibility study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:2437–47.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Mankowski C, Ikenwilo D, Heidenreich E, et al. Men’s preferences for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a discrete choice experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:2407–17.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Deidda M, Meleddu M, Pulina M. Potential users’ preferences towards cardiac telemedicine: a discrete choice experiment investigation in Sardinia. Health Policy Technol. 2018;7:125–30.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hole AR. Modelling heterogeneity in patients’ preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. J Health Econ. 2008;27:1078–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Michaels-Igbokwe C, Lagarde M, Cairns J, et al. Designing a package of sexual and reproductive health and HIV outreach services to meet the heterogeneous preferences of young people in Malawi: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ Rev. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-015-0046-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Campbell HE, Gray AM, Watson J, et al. Preferences for interventions designed to increase cervical screening uptake in non-attending young women: how findings from a discrete choice experiment compare with observed behaviours in a trial. Health Expect. 2020;23:202–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Brown DS, Poulos C, Johnson FR, et al. Adolescent girls’ preferences for HPV vaccines: a discrete choice experiment. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 2014;24:93–121.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Hall J, Fiebig DG, King MT, et al. What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. J Health Econ. 2006;25:520–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Tayyari Dehbarez N, Raun Morkbak M, Gyrd-Hansen D, et al. Women’s preferences for birthing hospital in Denmark: a discrete choice experiment. Patient. 2018;11:613–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. van de Wetering L, van Exel J, Bobinac A, et al. Valuing QALYs in relation to equity considerations using a discrete choice experiment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:1289–300.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Howard K, Salkeld GP, Patel MI, et al. Men’s preferences and trade-offs for prostate cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment. Health Expect. 2015;18:3123–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Bliemer MCJ, et al. Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? Soc Sci Med. 2020;246: 112736.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Boeri M, Szegvari B, Hauber B, et al. From drug-delivery device to disease management tool: a study of preferences for enhanced features in next-generation self-injection devices. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:1093–110.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Wong CKH, Man KKC, Ip P, et al. Mothers’ preferences and willingness to pay for human papillomavirus vaccination for their daughters: a discrete choice experiment in Hong Kong. Value Health. 2018;21:622–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Abiiro GA, Torbica A, Kwalamasa K, et al. What factors drive heterogeneity of preferences for micro-health insurance in rural Malawi? Health Policy Plan. 2016;31:1172–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Klojgaard ME, Hess S. Understanding the formation and influence of attitudes in patients’ treatment choices for lower back pain: testing the benefits of a hybrid choice model approach. Soc Sci Med. 2014;114:138–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Negrin MA, Pinilla J, Leon CJ. Willingness to pay for alternative policies for patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. Health Econ Policy Law. 2008;3:257–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Johnson FR, Ozdemir S, Phillips KA. Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:183–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Horby PW, Roddick A, Spata E, et al. Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial. Lancet. 2021;397:605–12.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Peyron C, Pelissier A, Bejean S. Preference heterogeneity with respect to whole genome sequencing. A discrete choice experiment among parents of children with rare genetic diseases. Soc Sci Med. 2018;214:125–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Ammi M, Peyron C. Heterogeneity in general practitioners’ preferences for quality improvement programs: a choice experiment and policy simulation in France. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6:44.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Cunningham CE, Hutchings T, Henderson J, et al. Modeling the hospital safety partnership preferences of patients and their families: a discrete choice conjoint experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1359–72.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Jarvis W, Pettigrew S. The relative influence of alcohol warning statement type on young drinkers’ stated choices. Food Qual Prefer. 2013;28:244–52.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Sadler A, Shi L, Bethge S, et al. Incentives for blood donation: a discrete choice experiment to analyze extrinsic motivation. Transfus Med Hemother. 2018;45:116–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Zweifel P, Telser H, Vaterlaus S. Consumer resistance against regulation: The case of health care. J Regul Econ. 2006;29:319–32.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Muhlbacher AC, Junker U, Juhnke C, et al. Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16:613–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Murchie P, Norwood PF, Pietrucin-Materek M, et al. Determining cancer survivors’ preferences to inform new models of follow-up care. Br J Cancer. 2016;115:1495–503.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Norman R, Hall J, Street D, et al. Efficiency and equity: a stated preference approach. Health Econ. 2013;22:568–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Erdem S, Thompson C. Prioritising health service innovation investments using public preferences: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:360.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Vass CM, Rigby D, Payne K. Investigating the heterogeneity in women’s preferences for breast screening: does the communication of risk matter? Value Health. 2018;21:219–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Hensher DA, Greene WH. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation. 2003;30:133–76.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Ellis A, de Bekker-Grob E, Howard K, et al. Number of Halton draws required for valid random parameter estimation with discrete choice data. Patient. 2019;12:432.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Czajkowski M, Budziński W. Simulation error in maximum likelihood estimation of discrete choice models. J Choice Model. 2019;31:73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Lancsar E, Fiebig DG, Hole AR. Discrete choice experiments: a guide to model specification, estimation and software. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:697–716.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Meads DM, O’Dwyer JL, Hulme CT, et al. Patient Preferences for Pain Management in Advanced Cancer: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment. Patient. 2017;10:643–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Copsey B, Buchanan J, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Duration of treatment effect should be considered in the design and interpretation of clinical trials: results of a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Making. 2019;39:461–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Miners A, Nadarzynski T, Witzel C, et al. Preferences for HIV testing services among men who have sex with men in the UK: a discrete choice experiment. PLoS Med. 2019;16: e1002779.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Milte R, Ratcliffe J, Chen G, et al. Cognitive overload? An exploration of the potential impact of cognitive functioning in discrete choice experiments with older people in health care. Value Health. 2014;17:655–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Huber J, Train K. On the similarity of classical and Bayesian estimates of individual mean partworths. Mark Lett. 2001;12:259–69.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Florida, 4202 E Fowler Ave, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA

    Suzana Karim & Benjamin M. Craig

  2. RTI Health Solutions, Manchester, UK

    Caroline Vass

  3. The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Caroline Vass

  4. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn

Authors
  1. Suzana Karim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin M. Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caroline Vass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzana Karim.

Ethics declarations

Funding/Support

No external funding was used.

Conflicts of interest/competing interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publication

All authors provide this consent.

Availability of data and material

Please contact to the corresponding author.

Code availability

Please contact the corresponding author for any requests and queries for any study materials including codes.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSM 156 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 62 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karim, S., Craig, B.M., Vass, C. et al. Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review. PharmacoEconomics 40, 943–956 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01178-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01178-y

Search

Navigation