References
- Bridges J. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003;2(4):213-24
- Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, 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
- Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001;5(5):1-186
- Shackley P, Ryan M. Involving consumers in health care decision making. Health Care Anal 1995;3(3):196-204
- Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Carson RT. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling 2010;3(3):57-72
- Phillips KA, Johnson FR, Maddala T. Measuring what people value: a comparison of ‘attitude’ and ‘preference’ surveys. Health Serv Res 2002;37(6):1659-79
- Srinivasan V, Netzer O. Adaptive self-explication of multi-attribute preferences. Research Papers 1979; Stanford University, Graduate School of Business; 2007
- Clark M, Determann D, Petrou S, et al. Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: a Review of the Literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2014;32(9):883-902
- Bridges JF, Lataille AT, Buttorff C, et al. Consumer preferences for hearing aid attributes: a comparison of rating and conjoint analysis methods. Trends Amplif 2012;16(1):40-8
- Johnson FR, Hauber AB, Osoba D, et al. Are chemotherapy patients’ HRQoL importance weights consistent with linear scoring rules? A stated-choice approach. Qual Life Res 2006;15(2):285-98
- Pignone MP, Brenner AT, Hawley S, et al. Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and clarification in colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27(1):45-50
- Moust J, Bouhuijs P, Schmidt H. Introduction to problem-based learning. In: Collaborative learning in the tutorial group. Taylor & Francis, Groningen, The Netherlands; 2007
- Schmidt HG. Foundations of problem-based learning: some explanatory notes. Med Educ 1993;27(5):422-32
- Choice Metrics. Available from: www.choice-metrics.com/
- Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press; 2005
- Bech M, Kjaer T, Lauridsen J. Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2011;20(3):273-86
- Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003;2(1):55-64
- Marshall D, Bridges JP, Hauber B, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health – how are studies being designed and reported? Patient-Patient-Centered-Outcome-Res 2010;3(4):249-56
- de Bekker-Grob EW, Hol L, Donkers B, et al. Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Value Health 2010;13(2):315-23
- Hiligsmann M, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, et al. Patients’ preferences for osteoporosis drug treatment: a discrete-choice experiment. Arthritis Res Ther 2014;16:R36
- Malhotra N, Birks D. Marketing Research: an applied approach. 3rd European Edition. In: Multidimensional scaling and conjoint analysis. Pearson Education, Edinburgh, England; 2007
- Koedoot CG, de Haan RJ, Stiggelbout AM, et al. Palliative chemotherapy or best supportive care? A prospective study explaining patients’ treatment preference and choice. Br J Cancer 2003;89(12):2219-26
- Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 2007;26(1):171-89