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 *

194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29032437)

  • 81. The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores.
    Norman R; Mulhern B; Viney R
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2016 Aug; 34(8):805-14. PubMed ID: 27034244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 82. Comparative analysis of decision maker preferences for equity/efficiency attributes in reimbursement decisions in three European countries.
    Baji P; García-Goñi M; Gulácsi L; Mentzakis E; Paolucci F
    Eur J Health Econ; 2016 Sep; 17(7):791-9. PubMed ID: 26296623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 83. Experimental design issues in choice-based conjoint applied to patient choice in healthcare.
    Chitturi P; Carides A
    J Comp Eff Res; 2020 Jan; 9(2):141-147. PubMed ID: 31950850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 84. 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]  

  • 85. Determining Criteria and Weights for Prioritizing Health Technologies Based on the Preferences of the General Population: A New Zealand Pilot Study.
    Sullivan T; Hansen P
    Value Health; 2017 Apr; 20(4):679-686. PubMed ID: 28408011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 86. Preference heterogeneity and choice of cardiac rehabilitation program: results from a discrete choice experiment.
    Kjaer T; Gyrd-Hansen D
    Health Policy; 2008 Jan; 85(1):124-32. PubMed ID: 17728004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 87. Patient preferences for healthcare delivery through community pharmacy settings in the USA: A discrete choice study.
    Feehan M; Walsh M; Godin J; Sundwall D; Munger MA
    J Clin Pharm Ther; 2017 Dec; 42(6):738-749. PubMed ID: 28627110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 88. Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment.
    Hole AR
    J Health Econ; 2008 Jul; 27(4):1078-1094. PubMed ID: 18179837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 89. Decision-making criteria among national policymakers in five countries: a discrete choice experiment eliciting relative preferences for equity and efficiency.
    Mirelman A; Mentzakis E; Kinter E; Paolucci F; Fordham R; Ozawa S; Ferraz M; Baltussen R; Niessen LW
    Value Health; 2012 May; 15(3):534-9. PubMed ID: 22583464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 90. Systematic review and validity assessment of methods used in discrete choice experiments of primary healthcare professionals.
    Merlo G; van Driel M; Hall L
    Health Econ Rev; 2020 Dec; 10(1):39. PubMed ID: 33296066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 91. Menu choice stated preference tasks to capture demand complementarity in health.
    Huynh E; Swait J; Lancsar E; Ride J
    Soc Sci Med; 2024 Mar; 344():116636. PubMed ID: 38394862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 92. Using Best-Worst Scaling to Investigate Preferences in Health Care.
    Cheung KL; Wijnen BF; Hollin IL; Janssen EM; Bridges JF; Evers SM; Hiligsmann M
    Pharmacoeconomics; 2016 Dec; 34(12):1195-1209. PubMed ID: 27402349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 93. Evaluating the Consistency of Patient Preference Estimates: Systematic Variation in Survival-Adverse Event Trade-Offs in Patients with Cancer or Cardiovascular Disease.
    Marsh K; Krucien N
    Patient; 2022 Jan; 15(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 34056700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 94. Issues in the Design of Discrete Choice Experiments.
    Norman R; Craig BM; Hansen P; Jonker MF; Rose J; Street DJ; Mulhern B
    Patient; 2019 Jun; 12(3):281-285. PubMed ID: 30446958
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 95. On the meaningfulness of testing preference axioms in stated preference discrete choice experiments.
    Hougaard JL; Tjur T; Osterdal LP
    Eur J Health Econ; 2012 Aug; 13(4):409-17. PubMed ID: 21544605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 96. Survey-design and analytical strategies for better healthcare stated-choice studies.
    Johnson FR; Mansfield C
    Patient; 2008 Dec; 1(4):299-307. PubMed ID: 22272997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 97. Key Issues and Potential Solutions for Understanding Healthcare Preference Heterogeneity Free from Patient-Level Scale Confounds.
    Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM; Flynn TN; Yoo HI; Magidson J; Oppe M
    Patient; 2018 Oct; 11(5):463-466. PubMed ID: 29691804
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 98. #ESHREjc report: Discrete choice experiments and patient decision-making in ART.
    Ali ZE; Fraire-Zamora JJ; Uraji J; Makieva S; Massarotti C; Mincheva M; Ammar OF; Llacer J; Martins MV; Moura-Ramos M; Wang R; Kohlhepp F
    Hum Reprod; 2022 Apr; 37(4):873-875. PubMed ID: 35213726
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 99. What Can Discrete-Choice Experiments Tell Us about Patient Preferences? An Introduction to Quantitative Analysis of Choice Data.
    Johnson FR; Adamowicz W; Groothuis-Oudshoorn C
    Patient; 2024 Jul; ():. PubMed ID: 39048912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 100. Improving the Validity of Stated-Preference Data in Health Research: The Potential of the Time-to-Think Approach.
    Ozdemir S
    Patient; 2015 Jun; 8(3):247-55. PubMed ID: 25209857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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