129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28477080)
21. How do consumers respond when presented with novel doctor performance information? A multivariate regression analysis.
Hanson MB
Health Expect; 2022 Feb; 25(1):290-303. PubMed ID: 34850501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Exploring Types of Information Sources Used When Choosing Doctors: Observational Study in an Online Health Care Community.
Zhang S; Wang JN; Chiu YL; Hsu YT
J Med Internet Res; 2020 Sep; 22(9):e20910. PubMed ID: 32936080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Insurees' preferences in hospital choice-A population-based study.
Schuldt J; Doktor A; Lichters M; Vogt B; Robra BP
Health Policy; 2017 Oct; 121(10):1040-1046. PubMed ID: 28823608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Impact of Information Presentation Format on Preference for Total Knee Replacement Surgery.
Fraenkel L; Benjamin Nowell W; Stake CE; Venkatachalam S; Eyler R; Michel G; Peters E
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken); 2019 Mar; 71(3):379-384. PubMed ID: 29799668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Think twice before you book? Modelling the choice of public vs private dentist in a choice experiment.
Kiiskinen U; Suominen-Taipale AL; Cairns J
Health Econ; 2010 Jun; 19(6):670-82. PubMed ID: 19504546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Creating compact comparative health care information: what are the key quality attributes to present for cataract and total hip or knee replacement surgery?
Damman OC; Spreeuwenberg P; Rademakers J; Hendriks M
Med Decis Making; 2012; 32(2):287-300. PubMed ID: 21844381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Can front-of-pack labelling schemes guide healthier food choices? Australian shoppers' responses to seven labelling formats.
Watson WL; Kelly B; Hector D; Hughes C; King L; Crawford J; Sergeant J; Chapman K
Appetite; 2014 Jan; 72():90-7. PubMed ID: 24126243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Asking better questions: How presentation formats influence information search.
Wu CM; Meder B; Filimon F; Nelson JD
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2017 Aug; 43(8):1274-1297. PubMed ID: 28318286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Societal Preferences for Interventions with the Same Efficiency: Assessment and Application to Decision Making.
Shiroiwa T; Saito S; Shimozuma K; Kodama S; Noto S; Fukuda T
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2016 Jun; 14(3):375-85. PubMed ID: 26940671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Consumers' responses to front-of-pack labels that vary by interpretive content.
Talati Z; Pettigrew S; Kelly B; Ball K; Dixon H; Shilton T
Appetite; 2016 Jun; 101():205-13. PubMed ID: 26970293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. What Do Patients Want from Otolaryngologists? A Discrete Choice Experiment.
Naunheim MR; Rathi VK; Naunheim ML; Alkire BC; Lam AC; Song PC; Shrime MG
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2017 Oct; 157(4):618-624. PubMed ID: 28675119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Order of Presentation of Dimensions Does Not Systematically Bias Utility Weights from a Discrete Choice Experiment.
Norman R; Kemmler G; Viney R; Pickard AS; Gamper E; Holzner B; Nerich V; King M
Value Health; 2016 Dec; 19(8):1033-1038. PubMed ID: 27987630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states.
Norman R; Cronin P; Viney R
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2013 Jun; 11(3):287-98. PubMed ID: 23649892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The effect of public reporting presentation on patients' decision making: An experimental survey in Yunan Province, China.
Liu C; Tang Y; Wang D; Zhang X
Medicine (Baltimore); 2017 Jun; 96(24):e7203. PubMed ID: 28614266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A comparison of on-pack Quitline information formats.
Hoek J; Gendall P; Eckert C; Rolls K; Louviere J
Tob Control; 2016 Mar; 25(2):211-7. PubMed ID: 25361746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer.
Howard K; Salkeld G
Value Health; 2009; 12(2):354-63. PubMed ID: 18657102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Parental awareness and use of online physician rating sites.
Hanauer DA; Zheng K; Singer DC; Gebremariam A; Davis MM
Pediatrics; 2014 Oct; 134(4):e966-75. PubMed ID: 25246629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Reduce mortality risk above all else: a discrete-choice experiment in acute coronary syndrome patients.
Mühlbacher AC; Bethge S
Pharmacoeconomics; 2015 Jan; 33(1):71-81. PubMed ID: 25342231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Investigating the Heterogeneity in Women's Preferences for Breast Screening: Does the Communication of Risk Matter?
Vass CM; Rigby D; Payne K
Value Health; 2018 Feb; 21(2):219-228. PubMed ID: 29477404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Effects of nutrition label format and product assortment on the healthfulness of food choice.
Aschemann-Witzel J; Grunert KG; van Trijp HC; Bialkova S; Raats MM; Hodgkins C; Wasowicz-Kirylo G; Koenigstorfer J
Appetite; 2013 Dec; 71():63-74. PubMed ID: 23891558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
