These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

192 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29032437)

  • 61. Follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: one strategy fits all? An investigation of patient preferences using a discrete choice experiment.
    Kimman ML; Dellaert BG; Boersma LJ; Lambin P; Dirksen CD
    Acta Oncol; 2010 Apr; 49(3):328-37. PubMed ID: 20148645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment.
    Kaambwa B; Lancsar E; McCaffrey N; Chen G; Gill L; Cameron ID; Crotty M; Ratcliffe J
    Soc Sci Med; 2015 Sep; 140():81-94. PubMed ID: 26210656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Assessing Rationality in Discrete Choice Experiments in Health: An Investigation into the Use of Dominance Tests.
    Tervonen T; Schmidt-Ott T; Marsh K; Bridges JFP; Quaife M; Janssen E
    Value Health; 2018 Oct; 21(10):1192-1197. PubMed ID: 30314620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Factors influencing women's preferences for subsequent management in the event of incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for miscarriage.
    Hentzen JEKR; Verschoor MA; Lemmers M; Ankum WM; Mol BWJ; van Wely M
    Hum Reprod; 2017 Aug; 32(8):1674-1683. PubMed ID: 28575402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single-best discrete choice experiments, should we use best-worst, best-best or ranking for preference elicitation?
    Huls SPI; Lancsar E; Donkers B; Ride J
    Health Econ; 2022 Dec; 31(12):2630-2647. PubMed ID: 36102864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. A Guide to Measuring and Interpreting Attribute Importance.
    Gonzalez JM
    Patient; 2019 Jun; 12(3):287-295. PubMed ID: 30906968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Eliciting patients' preferences for epilepsy diagnostics: a discrete choice experiment.
    Wijnen BF; de Kinderen RJ; Colon AJ; Dirksen CD; Essers BA; Hiligsmann M; Leijten FS; Ossenblok PP; Evers SM
    Epilepsy Behav; 2014 Feb; 31():102-9. PubMed ID: 24389020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Cognitive overload? An exploration of the potential impact of cognitive functioning in discrete choice experiments with older people in health care.
    Milte R; Ratcliffe J; Chen G; Lancsar E; Miller M; Crotty M
    Value Health; 2014 Jul; 17(5):655-9. PubMed ID: 25128060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force.
    Reed Johnson F; Lancsar E; Marshall D; Kilambi V; Mühlbacher A; Regier DA; Bresnahan BW; Kanninen B; Bridges JF
    Value Health; 2013; 16(1):3-13. PubMed ID: 23337210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Consistency between stated and revealed preferences: a discrete choice experiment and a behavioural experiment on vaccination behaviour compared.
    Lambooij MS; Harmsen IA; Veldwijk J; de Melker H; Mollema L; van Weert YW; de Wit GA
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2015 Mar; 15():19. PubMed ID: 25887890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force.
    Hauber AB; González JM; Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG; Prior T; Marshall DA; Cunningham C; IJzerman MJ; Bridges JF
    Value Health; 2016 Jun; 19(4):300-15. PubMed ID: 27325321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Heterogeneity in general practitioners' preferences for quality improvement programs: a choice experiment and policy simulation in France.
    Ammi M; Peyron C
    Health Econ Rev; 2016 Dec; 6(1):44. PubMed ID: 27637834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Valuing Preferences for the Process and Outcomes of Clinical Genetics Services: A Pilot Study.
    Gray E; Eden M; Vass C; McAllister M; Louviere J; Payne K
    Patient; 2016 Apr; 9(2):135-47. PubMed ID: 26085127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. An Investigation of the Stability of Patients' Treatment Preferences Over the Course of a Clinical Trial.
    Allanson PF; Brown EA; Kopasker D; Kwiatkowski A
    Value Health; 2020 Jun; 23(6):775-781. PubMed ID: 32540236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Preferences for antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C: a discrete choice experiment.
    Mühlbacher AC; Bridges JF; Bethge S; Dintsios CM; Schwalm A; Gerber-Grote A; Nübling M
    Eur J Health Econ; 2017 Mar; 18(2):155-165. PubMed ID: 26846922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Patient preferences versus physicians' judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making?
    Mühlbacher AC; Juhnke C
    Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2013 Jun; 11(3):163-80. PubMed ID: 23529716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Preferences for physician services in Ukraine: a discrete choice experiment.
    Danyliv A; Pavlova M; Gryga I; Groot W
    Int J Health Plann Manage; 2015; 30(4):346-65. PubMed ID: 24399636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. One size does not fit all: HIV testing preferences differ among high-risk groups in Northern Tanzania.
    Ostermann J; Njau B; Mtuy T; Brown DS; Mühlbacher A; Thielman N
    AIDS Care; 2015; 27(5):595-603. PubMed ID: 25616562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Using discrete choice experiments to develop and deliver patient-centered psychological interventions: a systematic review.
    McGrady ME; Pai ALH; Prosser LA
    Health Psychol Rev; 2021 Jun; 15(2):314-332. PubMed ID: 31937184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies: A Comparison of Discrete Choice and Profile Case Best-Worst Scaling Methods.
    Whitty JA; Ratcliffe J; Chen G; Scuffham PA
    Med Decis Making; 2014 Jul; 34(5):638-54. PubMed ID: 24713695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.