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.
156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37506078)
1. Discrete choice experiment versus swing-weighting: A head-to-head comparison of diabetic patient preferences for glucose-monitoring devices. Whichello C; Smith I; Veldwijk J; de Wit GA; Rutten-van Molken MPMH; de Bekker-Grob EW PLoS One; 2023; 18(7):e0283926. PubMed ID: 37506078 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparing Discrete Choice Experiment with Swing Weighting to Estimate Attribute Relative Importance: A Case Study in Lung Cancer Patient Preferences. Veldwijk J; Smith IP; Oliveri S; Petrocchi S; Smith MY; Lanzoni L; Janssens R; Huys I; de Wit GA; Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM Med Decis Making; 2024 Feb; 44(2):203-216. PubMed ID: 38178591 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. What matters most to patients with multiple myeloma? A Pan-European patient preference study. Janssens R; Lang T; Vallejo A; Galinsky J; Morgan K; Plate A; De Ronne C; Verschueren M; Schoefs E; Vanhellemont A; Delforge M; Schjesvold F; Cabezudo E; Vandebroek M; Stevens H; Simoens S; Huys I Front Oncol; 2022; 12():1027353. PubMed ID: 36523996 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. MCDA swing weighting and discrete choice experiments for elicitation of patient benefit-risk preferences: a critical assessment. Tervonen T; Gelhorn H; Sri Bhashyam S; Poon JL; Gries KS; Rentz A; Marsh K Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2017 Dec; 26(12):1483-1491. PubMed ID: 28696023 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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. 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]
9. Patient Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatments: A Study Protocol for a Preference Survey Using Discrete Choice Experiment and Swing Weighting. Monzani D; Petrocchi S; Oliveri S; Veldwijk J; Janssens R; Bailo L; Smith MY; Smith I; Schoefs E; Nackaerts K; Vandevelde M; Louis E; Decaluwé H; De Leyn P; Declerck H; Katz EG; Petrella F; Casiraghi M; Durosini I; Galli G; Garassino MC; de Wit GA; Pravettoni G; Huys I Front Med (Lausanne); 2021; 8():689114. PubMed ID: 34409049 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Comparing the Self-Reported Acceptability of Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling: An Empirical Study in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Li F; Liu S; Gu Y; Li S; Tao Y; Wei Y; Chen Y Patient Prefer Adherence; 2024; 18():1803-1813. PubMed ID: 39229369 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Discrete Choice Experiment Attribute Selection Using a Multinational Interview Study: Treatment Features Important to Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Rydén A; Chen S; Flood E; Romero B; Grandy S Patient; 2017 Aug; 10(4):475-487. PubMed ID: 28315192 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Attribute nonattendance in COVID-19 vaccine choice: A discrete choice experiment based on Chinese public preference. Xiao J; Wang F; Wang M; Ma Z Health Expect; 2022 Jun; 25(3):959-970. PubMed ID: 35049117 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparing Preferences for Disease Profiles: A Discrete Choice Experiment from a US Societal Perspective. Johnston KM; Audhya IF; Dunne J; Feeny D; Neumann P; Malone DC; Szabo SM; Gooch KL Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2024 May; 22(3):343-352. PubMed ID: 38253973 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Valuing injection frequency and other attributes of type 2 diabetes treatments in Australia: a discrete choice experiment. Fifer S; Rose J; Hamrosi KK; Swain D BMC Health Serv Res; 2018 Aug; 18(1):675. PubMed ID: 30165844 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Personalized diabetes management: what do patients with diabetes mellitus prefer? A discrete choice experiment. Mühlbacher AC; Sadler A; Juhnke C Eur J Health Econ; 2021 Apr; 22(3):425-443. PubMed ID: 33587221 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Development of a Discrete-Choice Experiment (DCE) to Elicit Adolescent and Parent Preferences for Hypodontia Treatment. Barber S; Bekker H; Marti J; Pavitt S; Khambay B; Meads D Patient; 2019 Feb; 12(1):137-148. PubMed ID: 30367434 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]