Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review

  • Scoping Review
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Objective

Systematic reviews of discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) are being increasingly conducted. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and describe the methodologies that have been used to summarize results across DCEs.

Methods

We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 18, 2021, to identify English-language systematic reviews of patient preferences that included at least two DCEs and extracted data on attribute importance. The methods used to summarize results across DCEs were classified into narrative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative (meta-analytic) approaches and compared. Approaches to characterize the extent of preference heterogeneity were also described.

Results

From 7362 unique records, we identified 54 eligible reviews from 2010 to Mar 2021, across a broad range of health conditions. Most (83%) used a narrative approach to summarize findings of DCEs, often citing differences in studies as the reason for not formally pooling findings. Semi-quantitative approaches included summarizing the frequency of the most important attributes, the frequency of attribute statistical significance, or tabulated comparisons of attribute importance for each pair of attributes. One review conducted a meta-analysis using the maximum acceptable risk. While reviews often commented on the heterogeneity of patient preferences, few (6%) addressed this systematically across studies.

Conclusion

While not commonly used, several semi-quantitative and one quantitative approach for synthesizing results of DCEs were identified, which may be useful for generating summary estimates across DCEs when appropriate. Further work is needed to assess the validity and usefulness of these approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, Levitan B, Christopher S, Zandlo K, et al. A framework for incorporating patient preferences regarding benefits and risks into regulatory assessment of medical technologies. Value Health. 2016;19(6):746–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Medical device Innovation Consortium (MDIC). Medical device Innovation Consortium (MDIC) patient centered benefit-risk project report: a framework for incorporating information on patient preferences regarding benefit and risk into regulatory assessments of new medical technology; 2015.

  3. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(2):201–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yu T, Enkh-Amgalan N, Zorigt G. Methods to perform systematic reviews of patient preferences: a literature survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):166.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Durand C, Eldoma M, Marshall DA, Bansback N, Hazlewood GS. Patient preferences for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. J Rheumatol. 2020;47(2):176–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gonzalez JM. Evaluating risk tolerance from a systematic review of preferences: the case of patients with psoriasis. Patient. 2018;11(3):285–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Purnell TS, Joy S, Little E, Bridges JF, Maruthur N. Patient preferences for noninsulin diabetes medications: a systematic review. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(7):2055–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Selva A, Sola I, Zhang Y, Pardo-Hernandez H, Haynes RB, Martinez Garcia L, et al. Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients’ views and preferences. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):126.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. van Hoorn R, Kievit W, Booth A, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Refolo P, et al. The development of PubMed search strategies for patient preferences for treatment outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;29(16):88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wessels M, Hielkema L, van der Weijden T. How to identify existing literature on patients’ knowledge, views, and values: the development of a validated search filter. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(4):320–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Al-Omari B, McMeekin P, Bate A. Systematic review of studies using conjoint analysis techniques to investigate patients’ preferences regarding osteoarthritis treatment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2021;15:197–211.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Malde S, Umbach R, Wheeler JR, Lytvyn L, Cornu JN, Gacci M, et al. A systematic review of patients’ values, preferences, and expectations for the diagnosis and treatment of male lower urinary tract symptoms. Eur Urol. 2021;79(6):796–809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Buhn S, Holstiege J, Pieper D. Are patients willing to accept longer travel times to decrease their risk associated with surgical procedures? A systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):253.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Heenan M. An opportunity for improved engagement and transparency: a systematic review of renal dialysis cost effectiveness and discrete choice experiment studies. Healthc Manag Forum. 2020;33(5):200–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lack A, Hiligsmann M, Bloem P, Tunnessen M, Hutubessy R. Parent, provider and vaccinee preferences for HPV vaccination: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Vaccine. 2020;38(46):7226–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lepper S, Radke A, Wehrmann H, Michalowsky B, Hoffmann W. Preferences of cognitively impaired patients and patients living with dementia: a systematic review of quantitative patient preference studies. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(2):885–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Livingstone A, Agarwal A, Stockler MR, Menzies AM, Howard K, Morton RL. Preferences for immunotherapy in melanoma: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(2):571–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sain N, Willems D, Charokopou M, Hiligsmann M. The importance of understanding patient and physician preferences for psoriasis treatment characteristics: a systematic review of discrete-choice experiments. Curr Med Res Opin. 2020;36(8):1257–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sharma M, Ong JJ, Celum C, Terris-Prestholt F. Heterogeneity in individual preferences for HIV testing: a systematic literature review of discrete choice experiments. EClinicalMedicine. 2020;29–30:100653.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Sugitani Y, Sugitani N, Ono S. Quantitative preferences for lung cancer treatment from the patients’ perspective: a systematic review. Patient. 2020;13(5):521–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tunnessen M, Hiligsmann M, Stock S, Vennedey V. Patients’ preferences for the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. J Med Econ. 2020;23(6):546–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Visser LA, Louapre C, Uyl-de Groot CA, Redekop WK. Patient needs and preferences in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2020;39:101929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Barrionuevo P, Gionfriddo MR, Castaneda-Guarderas A, Zeballos-Palacios C, Bora P, Mohammed K, et al. Women’s values and preferences regarding osteoporosis treatments: a systematic review. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(5):1631–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Guerra RL, Castaneda L, de Albuquerque RCR, Ferreira CBT, Correa FM, Fernandes RRA, et al. Patient preferences for breast cancer treatment interventions: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2019;12(6):559–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Magliano C, Monteiro AL, de Oliveira Rebelo AR, de Aguiar Pereira CC. Patients’ preferences for coronary revascularization: a systematic review. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:29–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Oedingen C, Bartling T, Muhlbacher AC, Schrem H, Krauth C. Systematic review of public preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: principles of distributive justice. Patient. 2019;12(5):475–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Toroski M, Kebriaeezadeh A, Esteghamati A, Karyani AK, Abbasian H, Nikfar S. Patient and physician preferences for type 2 diabetes medications: a systematic review. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2019;18(2):643–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Vass CM, Georgsson S, Ulph F, Payne K. Preferences for aspects of antenatal and newborn screening: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):131.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Barber S, Pavitt S, Khambay B, Bekker H, Meads D. Eliciting preferences in dentistry with multiattribute stated preference methods: a systematic review. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2018;3(4):326–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Clark MD, Szczepura A, Gumber A, Howard K, Moro D, Morton RL. Measuring trade-offs in nephrology: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments and conjoint analysis studies. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33(2):348–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Florek AG, Wang CJ, Armstrong AW. Treatment preferences and treatment satisfaction among psoriasis patients: a systematic review. Arch Dermatol Res. 2018;310(4):271–319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Goshua A, Craigie S, Guyatt GH, Agarwal A, Li R, Bhullar JS, et al. Patient values and preferences regarding opioids for chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review. Pain Med. 2018;19(12):2469–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee SJ, O’Leary MC, Umble KE, Wheeler SB. Eliciting vulnerable patients’ preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:2267–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Regmi K, Kaphle D, Timilsina S, Tuha NAA. Application of discrete-choice experiment methods in tobacco control: a systematic review. Pharmacoecon Open. 2018;2(1):5–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhang Y, Morgan RL, Alonso-Coello P, Wiercioch W, Bala MM, Jaeschke RR, et al. A systematic review of how patients value COPD outcomes. Eur Respir J. 2018;52(1):1800222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bien DR, Danner M, Vennedey V, Civello D, Evers SM, Hiligsmann M. Patients’ preferences for outcome, process and cost attributes in cancer treatment: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2017;10(5):553–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Kleij KS, Tangermann U, Amelung VE, Krauth C. Patients’ preferences for primary health care—a systematic literature review of discrete choice experiments. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):476.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Landfeldt E, Edstrom J, Lindgren P, Lochmuller H. Patient preferences for treatments of neuromuscular diseases: a systematic literature review. J Neuromuscul Dis. 2017;4(4):285–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Loewen PS, Ji AT, Kapanen A, McClean A. Patient values and preferences for antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation. A narrative systematic review. Thromb Haemost. 2017;117(6):1007–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Morrell L, Wordsworth S, Rees S, Barker R. Does the public prefer health gain for cancer patients? A systematic review of public views on cancer and its characteristics. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(8):793–804.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Reen GK, Silber E, Langdon DW. Multiple sclerosis patients’ understanding and preferences for risks and benefits of disease-modifying drugs: a systematic review. J Neurol Sci. 2017;15(375):107–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wilke T, Bauer S, Mueller S, Kohlmann T, Bauersachs R. Patient preferences for oral anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation: a systematic literature review. Patient. 2017;10(1):17–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Belinchon I, Rivera R, Blanch C, Comellas M, Lizan L. Adherence, satisfaction and preferences for treatment in patients with psoriasis in the European Union: a systematic review of the literature. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:2357–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Hollowell J, Li Y, Malouf R, Buchanan J. Women’s birth place preferences in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the quantitative literature. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):213.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Mansfield C, Tangka FK, Ekwueme DU, Smith JL, Guy GP Jr, Li C, et al. Stated preference for cancer screening: a systematic review of the literature, 1990–2013. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016;25(13):E27.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ridyard CH, Dawoud DM, Tuersley LV, Hughes DA. A systematic review of patients’ perspectives on the subcutaneous route of medication administration. Patient. 2016;9(4):281–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Schmidt K, Damm K, Prenzler A, Golpon H, Welte T. Preferences of lung cancer patients for treatment and decision-making: a systematic literature review. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016;25(4):580–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Yahanda AT, Lafaro KJ, Spolverato G, Pawlik TM. A systematic review of the factors that patients use to choose their surgeon. World J Surg. 2016;40(1):45–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Currie A, Askari A, Nachiappan S, Sevdalis N, Faiz O, Kennedy R. A systematic review of patient preference elicitation methods in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17(1):17–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Eiring O, Landmark BF, Aas E, Salkeld G, Nylenna M, Nytroen K. What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4): e007848.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Schatz NK, Fabiano GA, Cunningham CE, dosReis S, Waschbusch DA, Jerome S, et al. Systematic review of patients’ and parents’ preferences for ADHD treatment options and processes of care. Patient. 2015;8(6):483–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wilkinson G, Drummond M. Alternative approaches for assessing the socioeconomic benefits of medical devices: a systematic review. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12(5):629–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. von Arx LB, Kjeer T. The patient perspective of diabetes care: a systematic review of stated preference research. Patient. 2014;7(3):283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Higgins A, Barnett J, Meads C, Singh J, Longworth L. Does convenience matter in health care delivery? A systematic review of convenience-based aspects of process utility. Value Health. 2014;17(8):877–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Lizan L, Comellas M, Paz S, Poveda JL, Meletiche DM, Polanco C. Treatment adherence and other patient-reported outcomes as cost determinants in multiple sclerosis: a review of the literature. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:1653–64.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Whitty JA, Lancsar E, Rixon K, Golenko X, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient. 2014;7(4):365–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Wortley S, Wong G, Kieu A, Howard K. Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments. Patient. 2014;7(3):271–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. MacLean S, Mulla S, Akl EA, Jankowski M, Vandvik PO, Ebrahim S, et al. Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e1S-23S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Umar N, Yamamoto S, Loerbroks A, Terris D. Elicitation and use of patients’ preferences in the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review. Acta Derm Venereol. 2012;92(4):341–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Emberton M. Medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: physician and patient preferences and satisfaction. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64(10):1425–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Marshall D, McGregor SE, Currie G. Measuring preferences for colorectal cancer screening: what are the implications for moving forward? Patient. 2010;3(2):79–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Zhang Y, Alonso-Coello P, Guyatt GH, Yepes-Nunez JJ, Akl EA, Hazlewood G, et al. GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-Risk of bias and indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:94–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhang Y, Coello PA, Guyatt GH, Yepes-Nunez JJ, Akl EA, Hazlewood G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences-inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:83–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Joy SM, Little E, Maruthur NM, Purnell TS, Bridges JF. Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(10):877–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. National Institutes of Health. Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies

  68. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Downes MJ, Brennan ML, Williams HC, Dean RS. Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open. 2016;6(12): e011458.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Yepes-Nunez JJ, Zhang Y, Xie F, Alonso-Coello P, Selva A, Schunemann H, et al. Forty-two systematic reviews generated 23 items for assessing the risk of bias in values and preferences’ studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;85:21–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1(3):176–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM). Critical Appraisal Tools. Oxford; 2014.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Daksh Choudhary & Glen Hazlewood

  2. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Megan Thomas & Glen Hazlewood

  3. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Yuan Zhang & Holger Schünemann

  4. Instituto de Investigación Biomédica (IIB Sant Pau), Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, Barcelona, Spain

    Pablo Alonso-Coello

  5. Neuromodulation Center and Center for Clinical Research Learning, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Kevin Pacheco-Barrios

  6. Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Unidad de Investigación para la Generación y Sintesis de Evidencias en Salud, Lima, Peru

    Kevin Pacheco-Barrios

Authors
  1. Daksh Choudhary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Megan Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin Pacheco-Barrios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pablo Alonso-Coello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Holger Schünemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Glen Hazlewood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Glen Hazlewood.

Ethics declarations

Potential competing interests and disclosures

None.

Author contributions

Planning and conducting the study (GH, DC), data collection (DC, MT, KPB), data interpretation (GH, DC) drafting the manuscript (all authors). All authors have approved the final draft submitted.

Data availability statement

The data extraction form is available from authors on request.

Guarantor of the article

Dr. Glen Hazlewood

Financial support

Dr. Hazlewood is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research New Investigator Award. No financial support was provided for this study.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Writing Assistance

Not applicable.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 26 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choudhary, D., Thomas, M., Pacheco-Barrios, K. et al. Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review. Patient 15, 629–639 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-022-00587-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-022-00587-7

Search

Navigation