The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conjoint Analysis Applications in Health—a Checklist: A Report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“While conjoint analysis has been previously applied to vaccine and other biomedical research, [29–32] it has not been used to assess HPV vaccine acceptability in India.”
From Acceptability of HPV vaccination for cervical cancer prevention amongst emerging adult women in rural Mysore, India: a mixed-methods study (2024) · cites this paper as [29]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We followed recommended guidelines to design and implement the DCE. [7, 8, 11–16]”
From Assessing the American public's preferences for reforms to teen driving licensure systems: a discrete choice experiment (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“A survey containing a DCE was developed and administered according to best practice guidelines [26].”
From Consumer preferences for teledermoscopy screening to detect melanoma early (2016) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“In recent years, DCEs have been increasingly used in health and health care settings [9,10], as well as in addiction research [11] and digital health [4-6].”
From Understanding Uptake of Digital Health Products: Methodology Tutorial for a Discrete Choice Experiment Using the Bayesian Efficient Design (2021) · cites this paper as [9]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., Swait́, J., & Adamowicz, W. (2000) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511753831 · Cited by 7,008
Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., & Erikson, P. (2005) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x · Cited by 5,521
Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2008) · Cited by 5,345
Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook
Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/208721 · Cited by 3,165
Applied choice analysis a primer
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005) · Cited by 2,619
Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making: A User??s Guide
Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2008) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004 · Cited by 1,707
Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research
Orme, B. K. (2005) · Cited by 1,082
The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs
Huber, J. C., & Zwerina, K. (1996) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224379603300305 · Cited by 1,023
Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care
Ryan, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530 · Cited by 942
Mauskopf, J., Sullivan, S. D., Annemans, L., Jaime, J., Mullins, C. D., Nuijten, M. J. C., Orlewska, E., Watkins, J., & Trueman, P. (2007) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x · Cited by 752
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Chong, 2007, Do clinical practice guidelines incorporate evidence on patient preferences?, Med Decis Making, 27, E63
- Bridges, 2010, Common avoidance and determinants of demand for male circumcision in Johannesburg, South Africa, Health Policy Plan
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,001 of 1,001
Drabo, E. F., Michael, J. P., & Ehsani, J. P. (2026) · Injury Prevention · doi:10.1136/ip-2023-045221 · Cited by 1
“7 8 11–16 We developed web and phone interviews in English and Spanish to assess preferences for three attributes of teen driving licensing systems.”
Metadata
- 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.
- ORCID
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
