Cited by 2,029Economic and Environmental ValuationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeDelphi Technique in Research

Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health—a Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force

Open access
Bridges, John F.P., Hauber, A. Brett, Marshall, Deborah, Lloyd, Andrew, Prosser, Lisa A., Regier, Dean A., Johnson, F. Reed, Mauskopf, Josephine·2011·Value in Health

Abstract

Background The application of conjoint analysis (including discrete-choice experiments and other multiattribute stated-preference methods) in health has increased rapidly over the past decade. A wider acceptance of these methods is limited by an absence of consensus-based methodological standards.Objective The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force was established to identify good research practices for conjoint-analysis applications in health.Methods The task force met regularly to identify the important steps in a conjoint analysis, to discuss good research practices for conjoint analysis, and to develop and refine the key criteria for identifying good research practices. ISPOR members contributed to this process through an extensive consultation process. A final consensus meeting was held to revise the article using these comments, and those of a number of international reviewers.Results Task force findings are presented as a 10-item checklist covering: 1) research question; 2) attributes and levels; 3) construction of tasks; 4) experimental design; 5) preference elicitation; 6) instrument design; 7) data-collection plan; 8) statistical analyses; 9) results and conclusions; and 10) study presentation. A primary question relating to each of the 10 items is posed, and three sub-questions examine finer issues within items.Conclusions Although the checklist should not be interpreted as endorsing any specific methodological approach to conjoint analysis, it can facilitate future training activities and discussions of good research practices for the application of conjoint-analysis methods in health care studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Chong C, Chen I, Naglie C, et al. Do clinical practice guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences? Med Decis Making 2007; 27:E63-4.
  2. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the Economics of Health Care Programmes (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bridges, J. F. P., Hauber, A. B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L. A., Regier, D. A., Johnson, F. R., & Mauskopf, J.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
  • RTI Health Solutions (US)
Corresponding author
Bridges, John F.P.
Venue
Value in Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-06
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
403-413
ISSN
1098-3015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2121619367
Cited by
2,029
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 184 · 2025: 199 · 2024: 217 · 2023: 178 · 2022: 213 · 2021: 195 · 2020: 158 · 2019: 115 · 2018: 103 · 2017: 124 · 2016: 84 · 2015: 91 · 2014: 77 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 37
FWCI
134.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Value in Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
conjoint analysis, discrete choice experiment, stated preference methods, good scientific practice, methodological standards, checklists, preference elicitation, experimental design, ISPOR
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Research Design, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Economics, Pharmaceutical, Advisory Committees, Internationality, Checklist, Research Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review