The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.

IF 4.4 3区医学 Q1 ECONOMICS

PharmacoEconomics Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-21 DOI:10.1007/s40273-025-01495-y

Sven Petrus Henricus Nouwens, Stella Maria Marceta, Michael Bui, Daisy Maria Alberta Hendrika van Dijk, Catharina Gerarda Maria Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Jorien Veldwijk, Janine Astrid van Til, Esther Wilhelmina de Bekker-Grob

{"title":"The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Sven Petrus Henricus Nouwens, Stella Maria Marceta, Michael Bui, Daisy Maria Alberta Hendrika van Dijk, Catharina Gerarda Maria Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Jorien Veldwijk, Janine Astrid van Til, Esther Wilhelmina de Bekker-Grob","doi":"10.1007/s40273-025-01495-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Stakeholder preference evaluations are increasingly emphasized in healthcare policy and health technology assessment. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are the most common method for quantifying preferences among patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. While prior reviews (1990-2017) have examined DCE trends, no comprehensive synthesis exists for studies published since 2018. This updated review (2018-2023) provides critical insights into evolving methodologies and global trends in health-related DCEs.Methods: A systematic search (2018-2023) of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science identified relevant studies. Studies were screened for inclusion and data were extracted, including details on DCE design and analysis. To enable trend comparisons, the search strategy and extraction items aligned with previous reviews.Results: Of 2663 identified papers, 1279 met the inclusion criteria, reflecting a significant rise in published DCEs over time. DCEs were conducted globally, with a remarkable increase in publications from Asia and Africa compared with previous reviews. Experimental designs and econometric models have advanced, continuing prior trends. Notably, most recent DCEs were administered online.Discussion: The rapid growth of DCE applications underscores their importance in health research. While the methodology is advancing rapidly, it is crucial that researchers provide full transparency in reporting their methods, particularly in detailing experimental designs and validity tests, which are too often overlooked. Key recommendations include improving reporting of experimental designs, applying validity tests, following good practices for presenting benefit-risk attributes, and adopting open science practices. Ensuring methodological rigor will maximize the impact and reproducibility of DCE research in health economics.","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"879-936"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12255651/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-025-01495-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Stakeholder preference evaluations are increasingly emphasized in healthcare policy and health technology assessment. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are the most common method for quantifying preferences among patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. While prior reviews (1990-2017) have examined DCE trends, no comprehensive synthesis exists for studies published since 2018. This updated review (2018-2023) provides critical insights into evolving methodologies and global trends in health-related DCEs.

Methods: A systematic search (2018-2023) of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science identified relevant studies. Studies were screened for inclusion and data were extracted, including details on DCE design and analysis. To enable trend comparisons, the search strategy and extraction items aligned with previous reviews.

Results: Of 2663 identified papers, 1279 met the inclusion criteria, reflecting a significant rise in published DCEs over time. DCEs were conducted globally, with a remarkable increase in publications from Asia and Africa compared with previous reviews. Experimental designs and econometric models have advanced, continuing prior trends. Notably, most recent DCEs were administered online.

Discussion: The rapid growth of DCE applications underscores their importance in health research. While the methodology is advancing rapidly, it is crucial that researchers provide full transparency in reporting their methods, particularly in detailing experimental designs and validity tests, which are too often overlooked. Key recommendations include improving reporting of experimental designs, applying validity tests, following good practices for presenting benefit-risk attributes, and adopting open science practices. Ensuring methodological rigor will maximize the impact and reproducibility of DCE research in health economics.

查看原文本刊更多论文

健康经济学中离散选择实验的演变图景：系统回顾。

在卫生政策和卫生技术评估中，利益相关者偏好评价越来越受到重视。离散选择实验（dce）是量化患者、公众和医疗保健专业人员偏好的最常用方法。虽然之前的综述（1990-2017）研究了DCE趋势，但自2018年以来发表的研究没有全面的综合。这一更新的综述（2018-2023）提供了与健康相关的dce不断发展的方法和全球趋势的重要见解。方法：系统检索Medline、Embase和Web of Science的相关研究（2018-2023）。筛选纳入研究并提取数据，包括DCE设计和分析的详细信息。为了实现趋势比较，搜索策略和提取项目与以前的评论保持一致。结果：在2663篇确定的论文中，1279篇符合纳入标准，反映了随着时间的推移，发表的dce显著增加。发展评估是在全球范围内进行的，与以前的审查相比，亚洲和非洲的出版物显著增加。实验设计和计量经济模型已经推进，延续了先前的趋势。值得注意的是，最近的dce都是在线管理的。讨论：DCE应用的快速增长强调了它们在卫生研究中的重要性。虽然该方法正在迅速发展，但至关重要的是，研究人员在报告其方法时提供充分的透明度，特别是在详细说明实验设计和有效性测试时，这一点经常被忽视。主要建议包括改进实验设计报告、应用有效性测试、遵循展示收益-风险属性的良好做法以及采用开放科学实践。确保方法的严谨性将最大限度地提高DCE研究在卫生经济学中的影响和可重复性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

PharmacoEconomics 医学-药学

CiteScore

8.10

自引率

9.10%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： PharmacoEconomics is the benchmark journal for peer-reviewed, authoritative and practical articles on the application of pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life assessment to optimum drug therapy and health outcomes. An invaluable source of applied pharmacoeconomic original research and educational material for the healthcare decision maker. PharmacoEconomics is dedicated to the clear communication of complex pharmacoeconomic issues related to patient care and drug utilization. PharmacoEconomics offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article.