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: 30906968)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Attribute Selection for a Discrete Choice Experiment Incorporating a Best-Worst Scaling Survey.
    Webb EJD; Meads D; Lynch Y; Judge S; Randall N; Goldbart J; Meredith S; Moulam L; Hess S; Murray J
    Value Health; 2021 Apr; 24(4):575-584. PubMed ID: 33840436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Systematic Review Comparing the Acceptability, Validity and Concordance of Discrete Choice Experiments and Best-Worst Scaling for Eliciting Preferences in Healthcare.
    Whitty JA; Oliveira Gonçalves AS
    Patient; 2018 Jun; 11(3):301-317. PubMed ID: 29177797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Older adult patient preferences for the content and format of prescription medication labels - A best-worst scaling and discrete choice experiment study.
    Malhotra R; Suppiah SD; Tan YW; Sung P; Tay SSC; Tan NC; Koh GC; Chan A; Chew LST; Ozdemir S;
    Res Social Adm Pharm; 2023 Nov; 19(11):1455-1464. PubMed ID: 37507340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling: An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment.
    Soekhai V; Donkers B; Johansson JV; Jimenez-Moreno C; Pinto CA; de Wit GA; de Bekker-Grob E
    Patient; 2023 May; 16(3):239-253. PubMed ID: 36781628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Collecting Physicians' Preferences on Medical Devices: Are We Doing It Right? Evidence from Italian Orthopedists Using 2 Different Stated Preference Methods.
    Armeni P; Meregaglia M; Borsoi L; Callea G; Torbica A; Benazzo F; Tarricone R
    Med Decis Making; 2023; 43(7-8):886-900. PubMed ID: 37837325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Stakeholders' preferences for the design and delivery of virtual care services: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments.
    Vo LK; Allen MJ; Cunich M; Thillainadesan J; McPhail SM; Sharma P; Wallis S; McGowan K; Carter HE
    Soc Sci Med; 2024 Jan; 340():116459. PubMed ID: 38048738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparing Analytic Hierarchy Process and Discrete-Choice Experiment to Elicit Patient Preferences for Treatment Characteristics in Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
    Danner M; Vennedey V; Hiligsmann M; Fauser S; Gross C; Stock S
    Value Health; 2017 Sep; 20(8):1166-1173. PubMed ID: 28964450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessing the impact of excluded attributes on choice in a discrete choice experiment using a follow-up question.
    Mansfield C; Sutphin J; Boeri M
    Health Econ; 2020 Oct; 29(10):1307-1315. PubMed ID: 32627284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A think aloud study comparing the validity and acceptability of discrete choice and best worst scaling methods.
    Whitty JA; Walker R; Golenko X; Ratcliffe J
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(4):e90635. PubMed ID: 24759637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Choosing vs. allocating: discrete choice experiments and constant-sum paired comparisons for the elicitation of societal preferences.
    Skedgel CD; Wailoo AJ; Akehurst RL
    Health Expect; 2015 Oct; 18(5):1227-40. PubMed ID: 23758539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments.
    Lancsar E; Louviere J; Flynn T
    Soc Sci Med; 2007 Apr; 64(8):1738-53. PubMed ID: 17257725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Systematic Review of Patients' and Parents' Preferences for ADHD Treatment Options and Processes of Care.
    Schatz NK; Fabiano GA; Cunningham CE; dosReis S; Waschbusch DA; Jerome S; Lupas K; Morris KL
    Patient; 2015 Dec; 8(6):483-97. PubMed ID: 25644223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Simulation study to determine the impact of different design features on design efficiency in discrete choice experiments.
    Vanniyasingam T; Cunningham CE; Foster G; Thabane L
    BMJ Open; 2016 Jul; 6(7):e011985. PubMed ID: 27436671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Is Best-Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments.
    Krucien N; Watson V; Ryan M
    Health Econ; 2017 Dec; 26(12):e1-e16. PubMed ID: 27917560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Survival or Mortality: Does Risk Attribute Framing Influence Decision-Making Behavior in a Discrete Choice Experiment?
    Veldwijk J; Essers BA; Lambooij MS; Dirksen CD; Smit HA; de Wit GA
    Value Health; 2016; 19(2):202-9. PubMed ID: 27021754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Preferences for public involvement in health service decisions: a comparison between best-worst scaling and trio-wise stated preference elicitation techniques.
    Erdem S; Campbell D
    Eur J Health Econ; 2017 Dec; 18(9):1107-1123. PubMed ID: 27942967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.