Nouwens Sven Petrus Henricus, Marceta Stella Maria, Bui Michael, van Dijk Daisy Maria Alberta Hendrika, Groothuis-Oudshoorn Catharina Gerarda Maria, Veldwijk Jorien, van Til Janine Astrid, de Bekker-Grob Esther Wilhelmina
Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2025 May 21. doi: 10.1007/s40273-025-01495-y.
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.
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.
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.
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.
利益相关者偏好评估在医疗政策和卫生技术评估中日益受到重视。离散选择实验(DCE)是量化患者、公众和医疗专业人员偏好的最常用方法。虽然先前的综述(1990 - 2017年)研究了DCE的趋势,但对于2018年以来发表的研究尚无全面的综合分析。本次更新综述(2018 - 2023年)提供了有关健康相关DCE不断发展的方法和全球趋势的重要见解。
对Medline、Embase和科学网进行系统检索(2018 - 2023年)以确定相关研究。对研究进行筛选以确定纳入情况,并提取数据,包括DCE设计和分析的详细信息。为了进行趋势比较,检索策略和提取项目与先前的综述一致。
在2663篇已识别的论文中,1279篇符合纳入标准,这反映出随着时间推移发表的DCE数量显著增加。DCE在全球范围内开展,与先前的综述相比,亚洲和非洲的出版物数量显著增加。实验设计和计量经济学模型不断进步,延续了先前的趋势。值得注意的是,最近的DCE大多通过在线方式进行。
DCE应用的快速增长凸显了其在健康研究中的重要性。虽然该方法正在迅速发展,但研究人员在报告其方法时提供充分的透明度至关重要,特别是在详细说明实验设计和有效性测试方面,而这些往往被忽视。主要建议包括改进实验设计的报告、应用有效性测试、遵循呈现效益 - 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使DCE研究在健康经济学中的影响和可重复性最大化。