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 accessAbstract
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.
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.
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
Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior
McFadden, D. L. (1972) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 14,203
Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement
Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-2496(64)90015-x · Cited by 2,007
Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities
Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., & Williams, M. (1994) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1006/jeem.1994.1017 · Cited by 1,474
HASLOCK, I. (1989) · Rheumatology · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/28.3.185 · Cited by 841
Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey
Cattin, P., & Wittink, D. R. (1982) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224298204600308 · Cited by 692
The Health of the Nation: Recent government policy and legislation
Jenkins, R. (1994) · Psychiatric Bulletin · doi:10.1192/pb.18.6.324 · Cited by 610
Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment.
Anderson, N. H. (1970) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0029064 · Cited by 576
Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management
Ryan, M., & Hughes, J. (1997) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199705)6:3<261::aid-hec262>3.0.co;2-n · Cited by 344
Self-citationRyan, M. (1999) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00374-8 · Cited by 342
Self-citationVick, S., & Scott, A. (1998) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(97)00035-0 · Cited by 271
Cited by
Bridges, J. F. P., Hauber, A. B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L. A., Regier, D. A., Johnson, F. R., & Mauskopf, J. (2011) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013 · Cited by 2,029
Hauber, A. B., González, J. M., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G. M., Prior, T., Marshall, D. A., Cunningham, C., IJzerman, M. J., & Bridges, J. F. P. (2016) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004 · Cited by 1,330
(2011) · Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository · Cited by 1,209
Galea, J. T., Kinsler, J. J., Salazar, X., Lee, S.-J., Giron, M., Sayles, J. N., Cáceres, C., & Cunningham, W. E. (2011) · International Journal of STD & AIDS · doi:10.1258/ijsa.2009.009255 · Cited by 180
HIV vaccine acceptability among communities at risk: The impact of vaccine characteristics
Newman, P. A., Duan, N., Lee, S.-J., Rudy, E. T., Seiden, D. S., Kakinami, L., & Cunningham, W. E. (2006) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.11.013 · Cited by 66
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.