Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 938

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care

Open access
Ryan, M.·2000·BMJ

Abstract

Traditionally the extent of patients' involvement in medical decision making has been minimal. This has been true at both the micro level of the patient consultation with a doctor and the macro level of planning and developing healthcare services. Since 1989, however, greater involvement of patients and the community in these processes has been advocated.1–5 In principle, the elicitation of patients' and the community's values represents a big step forward in terms of enhancing the benefits from the provision of health care. For the exercise to be worth while, however, the information obtained must be useful and scientifically defensible.6 During the 1990s, conjoint analysis was developed to elicit patients' and the community's views on health care. #### Summary points Conjoint analysis is a rigorous method of eliciting preferences It allows estimation of the relative importance of different aspects of care, the trade-offs between these aspects, and the total satisfaction or utility that respondents derive from healthcare services The technique can help with decision making for some of the issues facing the NHS Though further applications of conjoint analysis are encouraged, methodological issues need further consideration This paper explains conjoint analysis, provides examples of applications in health care which were obtained from a systematic review of databases between 1989 and 1999 (Medline, Embase, HealthSTAR, PsychLIT, EconLIT), and uses a study in orthodontic care to show the uses and pitfalls of the technique. The survey method of data collection and analysis known as conjoint analysis was developed in mathematical psychology and has a strong theoretical basis.7–9 It has been successfully used in market research,10 transport economics,11 and environmental economics 12 13 and was recommended to the UK Treasury for valuing quality in the provision of public services.14 Within these areas it has been well received …

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 23 references

Cited by

See all 938

Metadata

Authors
Ryan, M.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2000-06-03
Volume
320
Issue
7248
Pages
1530-1533
ISSN
0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1964212813
Cited by
938
References
23
FWCI
43.29
Type
journal article
Language
fr
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530
The paper
Ryan, M. (2000). Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.