• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

属性水平重叠(和颜色编码)可以降低任务复杂性,提高选择一致性,并降低离散选择实验中的辍学率。

Attribute level overlap (and color coding) can reduce task complexity, improve choice consistency, and decrease the dropout rate in discrete choice experiments.

机构信息

Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

出版信息

Health Econ. 2019 Mar;28(3):350-363. doi: 10.1002/hec.3846. Epub 2018 Dec 18.

DOI:10.1002/hec.3846
PMID:30565338
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6590347/
Abstract

A randomized controlled discrete choice experiment (DCE) with 3,320 participating respondents was used to investigate the individual and combined impact of level overlap and color coding on task complexity, choice consistency, survey satisfaction scores, and dropout rates. The systematic differences between the study arms allowed for a direct comparison of dropout rates and cognitive debriefing scores and accommodated the quantitative comparison of respondents' choice consistency using a heteroskedastic mixed logit model. Our results indicate that the introduction of level overlap made it significantly easier for respondents to identify the differences and choose between the choice options. As a stand-alone design strategy, attribute level overlap reduced the dropout rate by 30%, increased the level of choice consistency by 30%, and avoided learning effects in the initial choice tasks of the DCE. The combination of level overlap and color coding was even more effective: It reduced the dropout rate by 40% to 50% and increased the level of choice consistency by more than 60%. Hence, we can recommend attribute level overlap, with color coding to amplify its impact, as a standard design strategy in DCEs.

摘要

采用了一项有 3320 名参与者的随机对照离散选择实验(DCE),以调查水平重叠和颜色编码对任务复杂性、选择一致性、调查满意度评分和退出率的单独和综合影响。研究臂之间的系统差异允许直接比较退出率和认知剖析评分,并使用异方差混合对数模型对受访者的选择一致性进行定量比较。我们的结果表明,引入水平重叠使得受访者更容易识别差异并在选择选项之间进行选择。作为一种独立的设计策略,属性水平重叠将退出率降低了 30%,将选择一致性提高了 30%,并避免了 DCE 初始选择任务中的学习效应。水平重叠和颜色编码的组合甚至更有效:它将退出率降低了 40%至 50%,并将选择一致性提高了 60%以上。因此,我们可以推荐属性水平重叠,并使用颜色编码来增强其影响,作为 DCE 中的标准设计策略。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a4a/6590347/e3f8fcde1fb6/HEC-28-350-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a4a/6590347/3c01530772de/HEC-28-350-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a4a/6590347/e3f8fcde1fb6/HEC-28-350-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a4a/6590347/3c01530772de/HEC-28-350-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6a4a/6590347/e3f8fcde1fb6/HEC-28-350-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Attribute level overlap (and color coding) can reduce task complexity, improve choice consistency, and decrease the dropout rate in discrete choice experiments.属性水平重叠(和颜色编码)可以降低任务复杂性,提高选择一致性,并降低离散选择实验中的辍学率。
Health Econ. 2019 Mar;28(3):350-363. doi: 10.1002/hec.3846. Epub 2018 Dec 18.
2
Effect of Level Overlap and Color Coding on Attribute Non-Attendance in Discrete Choice Experiments.水平重叠和颜色编码对离散选择实验中属性非参与的影响。
Value Health. 2018 Jul;21(7):767-771. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.002. Epub 2017 Nov 17.
3
Survival or Mortality: Does Risk Attribute Framing Influence Decision-Making Behavior in a Discrete Choice Experiment?生存还是死亡:风险属性框架是否会影响离散选择实验中的决策行为?
Value Health. 2016 Mar-Apr;19(2):202-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.11.004. Epub 2016 Jan 7.
4
Mimicking Real-Life Decision Making in Health: Allowing Respondents Time to Think in a Discrete Choice Experiment.模拟健康领域中的真实决策:在离散选择实验中给予受访者思考时间。
Value Health. 2020 Jul;23(7):945-952. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.014. Epub 2020 Jul 15.
5
Comparison of a full and partial choice set design in a labeled discrete choice experiment.全选择集和部分选择集设计在标记离散选择实验中的比较。
Health Econ. 2023 Jun;32(6):1284-1304. doi: 10.1002/hec.4666. Epub 2023 Mar 7.
6
Simulation study to determine the impact of different design features on design efficiency in discrete choice experiments.确定离散选择实验中不同设计特征对设计效率影响的模拟研究。
BMJ Open. 2016 Jul 19;6(7):e011985. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011985.
7
Are Efficient Designs Used in Discrete Choice Experiments Too Difficult for Some Respondents? A Case Study Eliciting Preferences for End-of-Life Care.离散选择实验中使用的高效设计对一些受访者来说是否太难?一项关于临终关怀偏好的案例研究。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Mar;34(3):273-84. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0338-z.
8
Assessing the impact of excluded attributes on choice in a discrete choice experiment using a follow-up question.使用后续问题评估离散选择实验中被排除属性对选择的影响。
Health Econ. 2020 Oct;29(10):1307-1315. doi: 10.1002/hec.4124. Epub 2020 Jul 6.
9
An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences.一项关于简化用于测量偏好的联合分析设计的实验。
Health Econ. 2003 Dec;12(12):1035-47. doi: 10.1002/hec.798.
10
Words or graphics to present a Discrete Choice Experiment: Does it matter?呈现离散选择实验的文字或图形:这重要吗?
Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Nov;98(11):1376-84. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.002. Epub 2015 Jun 17.

引用本文的文献

1
Analysis of patients preferences in type 2 diabetes mellitus second-line drug treatment: A discrete choice experiment.2型糖尿病二线药物治疗中患者偏好分析:一项离散选择实验
PLoS One. 2025 Sep 15;20(9):e0329743. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329743. eCollection 2025.
2
Engaging Underserved Populations in Health Preference Research: Challenges and Strategies.让服务不足人群参与健康偏好研究:挑战与策略
Patient. 2025 Jun 2. doi: 10.1007/s40271-025-00745-7.
3
Patient preferences for diagnostic imaging services: Decentralize or not?患者对诊断成像服务的偏好:是否去中心化?

本文引用的文献

1
Advocating a Paradigm Shift in Health-State Valuations: The Estimation of Time-Preference Corrected QALY Tariffs.倡导健康状态估值范式转变:时间偏好校正 QALY 关税的估计。
Value Health. 2018 Aug;21(8):993-1001. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.01.016. Epub 2018 Mar 21.
2
Effect of Level Overlap and Color Coding on Attribute Non-Attendance in Discrete Choice Experiments.水平重叠和颜色编码对离散选择实验中属性非参与的影响。
Value Health. 2018 Jul;21(7):767-771. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.002. Epub 2017 Nov 17.
3
Is Dimension Order Important when Valuing Health States Using Discrete Choice Experiments Including Duration?
PLoS One. 2025 May 16;20(5):e0301404. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301404. eCollection 2025.
4
Discrete Choice Experiment Versus Best-Worst Scaling: An Empirical Comparison in Eliciting Young People's Preferences for Web-Based Mental Health Interventions.离散选择实验与最佳-最差标度法:关于激发年轻人对基于网络的心理健康干预措施偏好的实证比较
Patient. 2025 May 2. doi: 10.1007/s40271-025-00739-5.
5
Do the Age of Children and Parental Status Matter in Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D)?儿童年龄和父母状况对儿童健康效用9D(CHU9D)估值有影响吗?
Pharmacoeconomics. 2025 Apr 23. doi: 10.1007/s40273-025-01494-z.
6
Young People's Preferences for Web-Based Mental Health Interventions for Managing Anxiety and Depression: A Discrete Choice Experiment.年轻人对用于管理焦虑和抑郁的基于网络的心理健康干预措施的偏好:一项离散选择实验
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2025 Mar 28. doi: 10.1007/s40258-025-00958-9.
7
How do Design Characteristics Affect Respondent Engagement? Assessing Attribute Non-attendance in Discrete Choice Experiments Valuing the EQ-5D-5L.设计特征如何影响受访者参与度?评估离散选择实验中属性不参与情况对EQ-5D-5L的估值
Patient. 2025 Jul;18(4):329-341. doi: 10.1007/s40271-025-00735-9. Epub 2025 Mar 15.
8
Developing a utility value set for the Gambling Quality of Life Scale-Brief (GQoLS-Brief) using a discrete choice experiment.使用离散选择实验为简明赌博生活质量量表(GQoLS-Brief)制定效用价值集。
Qual Life Res. 2025 Feb;34(2):457-469. doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03835-5. Epub 2024 Nov 26.
9
Preferences for Tapering Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Among People With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Discrete Choice Experiment.类风湿关节炎患者对生物性改善病情抗风湿药物减量的偏好:一项离散选择实验
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2025 Mar;77(3):349-358. doi: 10.1002/acr.25437. Epub 2024 Oct 16.
10
The impact of demographic change on value set validity and obsolescence.人口变化对价值观有效性和过时性的影响。
Qual Life Res. 2024 Nov;33(11):3155-3160. doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03770-5. Epub 2024 Sep 13.
在使用包含持续时间的离散选择实验评估健康状态时,维度顺序重要吗?
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Apr;35(4):439-451. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0475-z.
4
Are Health State Valuations from the General Public Biased? A Test of Health State Reference Dependency Using Self-assessed Health and an Efficient Discrete Choice Experiment.公众的健康状态估值存在偏差吗?一项使用自我评估健康状况和高效离散选择实验对健康状态参考依赖性的测试。
Health Econ. 2017 Dec;26(12):1534-1547. doi: 10.1002/hec.3445. Epub 2016 Oct 27.
5
First and Foremost Battle the Virus: Eliciting Patient Preferences in Antiviral Therapy for Hepatitis C Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.首要任务:对抗病毒——利用离散选择实验了解丙型肝炎抗病毒治疗中的患者偏好
Value Health. 2016 Sep-Oct;19(6):776-787. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.007.
6
GPs' implicit prioritization through clinical choices - evidence from three national health services.全科医生通过临床选择进行的隐性优先级排序——来自三个国家医疗服务体系的证据。
J Health Econ. 2016 Sep;49:169-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2016.07.001. Epub 2016 Jul 7.
7
Dutch Tariff for the Five-Level Version of EQ-5D.EQ-5D五级版本的荷兰关税。
Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):343-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003. Epub 2016 Mar 30.
8
Discrete Choice Experiment Response Rates: A Meta-analysis.离散选择实验的应答率:一项荟萃分析
Health Econ. 2017 Jun;26(6):810-817. doi: 10.1002/hec.3354. Epub 2016 Apr 27.
9
Are Efficient Designs Used in Discrete Choice Experiments Too Difficult for Some Respondents? A Case Study Eliciting Preferences for End-of-Life Care.离散选择实验中使用的高效设计对一些受访者来说是否太难?一项关于临终关怀偏好的案例研究。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Mar;34(3):273-84. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0338-z.
10
Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format.使用离散选择实验评估QLU-C10D:可行性及对呈现形式的敏感性
Qual Life Res. 2016 Mar;25(3):637-49. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3. Epub 2015 Sep 5.