1
|
Nouwens SPH, Marceta SM, Bui M, van Dijk DMAH, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Veldwijk J, van Til JA, de Bekker-Grob EW. The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2025:10.1007/s40273-025-01495-y. [PMID: 40397369 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01495-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/30/2025] [Indexed: 05/22/2025]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Stakeholder preference evaluations are increasingly emphasized in healthcare policy and health technology assessment. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are the most common method for quantifying preferences among patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. While prior reviews (1990-2017) have examined DCE trends, no comprehensive synthesis exists for studies published since 2018. This updated review (2018-2023) provides critical insights into evolving methodologies and global trends in health-related DCEs. METHODS A systematic search (2018-2023) of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science identified relevant studies. Studies were screened for inclusion and data were extracted, including details on DCE design and analysis. To enable trend comparisons, the search strategy and extraction items aligned with previous reviews. RESULTS Of 2663 identified papers, 1279 met the inclusion criteria, reflecting a significant rise in published DCEs over time. DCEs were conducted globally, with a remarkable increase in publications from Asia and Africa compared with previous reviews. Experimental designs and econometric models have advanced, continuing prior trends. Notably, most recent DCEs were administered online. DISCUSSION The rapid growth of DCE applications underscores their importance in health research. While the methodology is advancing rapidly, it is crucial that researchers provide full transparency in reporting their methods, particularly in detailing experimental designs and validity tests, which are too often overlooked. Key recommendations include improving reporting of experimental designs, applying validity tests, following good practices for presenting benefit-risk attributes, and adopting open science practices. Ensuring methodological rigor will maximize the impact and reproducibility of DCE research in health economics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sven Petrus Henricus Nouwens
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
- Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Stella Maria Marceta
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Michael Bui
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Daisy Maria Alberta Hendrika van Dijk
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jorien Veldwijk
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Janine Astrid van Til
- Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Esther Wilhelmina de Bekker-Grob
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Choice Modelling Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Rotterdam, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ward N, Robinson K, Jacobs J, Nichols M, Moodie M, Brown V. Including climate change in community-based obesity prevention interventions: a qualitative exploration of the perspectives of Australian funders. BMC Public Health 2025; 25:1526. [PMID: 40275219 PMCID: PMC12020184 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-025-22599-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2024] [Accepted: 04/02/2025] [Indexed: 04/26/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Community-based obesity prevention interventions (CBOPIs) demonstrate promise as effective, cost-effective approaches to prevent obesity. Whilst CBOPI actions often focus on obesity-related outcomes, they may also have positive impacts on climate change. Actions that simultaneously address obesity and climate change are known as double-duty actions. For example, switching to active modes of transport benefits individual health, while also reducing emissions from vehicle use. Support from CBOPI funding decision-makers is crucial for intervention success; the factors influencing funding decisions are currently not well understood. This study aimed to identify factors that influence funding decisions within organisations, to determine whether funders recognise double-duty actions in CBOPIs, and which double-duty actions are preferred. METHODS Potential participants with CBOPI funding decision-making roles were purposively sampled and invited to participate. Potential interview participants from government and non-government organisations were identified by search engine (Google) and invited via email to partake in an interview. Sixty-five invites were emailed and seven interviews with eight participants were conducted between April-May 2023. The participating stakeholders all had health roles; four State-wide and four local government. Semi-structured interviews with eight participants were conducted over Zoom between February-May 2023. Interviews were transcribed using Zoom Transcription and analysed with the assistance of NVivo. Reflexive Thematic Analysis underpinned the data analysis and the Social Ecological Model was used to further develop the theory. RESULTS Results suggested that participants recognised double-duty actions and believed inclusion of climate change action in CBOPIs would improve both intervention outcomes and participant acceptability. However, participants believed that stringent funding models limit flexibility to include climate change action. This could be mitigated by incorporating climate change into strategic health plans. Community partnerships may also be an effective tool to enhance double-duty actions in CBOPIs, as they allow participants to tailor interventions to community concerns including climate change. CONCLUSION CBOPIs that use double-duty actions to intentionally target obesity prevention and climate change action may play an important role in addressing two critical public health issues at the community level. Whilst CBOPI funders are supportive of double-duty actions, modifications from strategy and partnerships may be required to realise the successful implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Ward
- Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
| | - Kim Robinson
- School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
| | - Jane Jacobs
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
| | - Melanie Nichols
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
| | - Marj Moodie
- Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
| | - Vicki Brown
- Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
- Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ma X, Liu T, Yu J, Gao Y, Leung CK, Liang S, Akinwunmi BO, Liu X, Huang J, Zhang CJP, Ming WK. Exploring parental preferences for childhood obesity prevention program in China: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Public Health 2025; 25:1118. [PMID: 40128790 PMCID: PMC11934767 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-025-21572-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2024] [Accepted: 01/21/2025] [Indexed: 03/26/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Childhood obesity has emerged as one of the most critical public health challenges in China. Despite its urgency, the existing research on parental preference for tackling childhood obesity remains insufficient. This study aimed to determine the factors that parents prioritise most when commissioning hypothetical programs that target childhood obesity prevention in China. METHODS A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to assess parental preferences for a hypothetical childhood obesity prevention programme attributes. Recruitment occurred between 20th October 2022 and 30th December 2022, using snowball sampling facilitated through social media platforms. Eligibility criteria were limited to parents with at least one child aged between 5 and 17 years old. Relevant attributes of the childhood obesity prevention programme were identified through a literature review and expert consultation. The study encompassed six attributes, and the coefficient of these different attributes was analysed using multinomial logit models (MNL) and latent class models (LCM). RESULTS This study, involving 631 participants, demonstrates that in prioritizing attributes of childhood obesity prevention programs, parents place the greatest importance on additional costs (32.36%). This is followed by daily sleep duration (18.42%) and dietary choices (16.49%). A preference for a 9-hour sleep duration is evident (Odds Ratio [OR]: 1.291; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.186-1.406; p < 0.05, reference: 7 h), as well as a tendency towards high-protein diets over low-fat ones (OR: 1.114; 95% CI: 1.034-1.200; p < 0.05, reference: low-fat diet). School-based exercise is favoured over fitness centres (OR: 0.837; 95% CI: 0.785-0.893; p < 0.001, reference: school-based). A latent class model (LCM) identifies two distinct groups: one preferring school-based exercise, 8-hour sleep, and minimal additional expenses; the other favouring 9-hour sleep and willingness to invest an additional RMB200 for weight control. Both groups prefer high-protein diets and early eating schedules. CONCLUSIONS Understanding parental preferences and concerns is vital for crafting effective public health policies aligned with UN SDGs and the SDH framework. Key elements include promoting balanced diets, ensuring safe exercise spaces, and fostering parental engagement. Collaboration among policymakers, educators, and parents is essential to mitigate childhood obesity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xinyang Ma
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Public Health, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Taoran Liu
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Public Health, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
- Department of Public Health, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jing Yu
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Public Health, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Yangyang Gao
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Public Health, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Chun Kai Leung
- Hong Kong Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Shaolin Liang
- Institute for Six-Sector Economy, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
- STI-Zhilian Research Institute for Innovation and Digital Health, Beijing, China
| | - Babatunde O Akinwunmi
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jersey City Medical Center, 355 Grand Street, New Jersey, Jersey City, USA
| | - Xinchang Liu
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Public Health, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Jian Huang
- Institute for Human Development and Potential (IHDP), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Republic of Singapore
- Bioinformatics Institute (BII), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore, Republic of Singapore
- Human Potential Translational Research Programme, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Republic of Singapore
| | - Casper J P Zhang
- School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Wai-Kit Ming
- Department of Infectious Diseases and Public Health, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
You W, Yuan Y, Boyle KJ, Michaud TL, Parmeter C, Seidel RW, Estabrooks PA. Examining Ways to Improve Weight Control Programs' Population Reach and Representativeness: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Financial Incentives. PHARMACOECONOMICS - OPEN 2022; 6:193-210. [PMID: 34757584 PMCID: PMC8864042 DOI: 10.1007/s41669-021-00310-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/12/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Both theoretical and empirical evidence supports the potential of modest financial incentives to increase the reach of evidence-based weight control programs. However, few studies exist that examine the best incentive design for achieving the highest reach and representativeness at the lowest cost and whether or not incentive designs may be valued differentially by subgroups that experience obesity-related health disparities. METHODS A discrete choice experiment was conducted (n = 1232 participants; over 90% of them were overweight/obese) to collect stated preference towards different financial incentive attributes, including reward amount, program location, reward contingency, and payment form and frequency. Mixed logit and conditional logit models were used to determine overall and subgroup preference ranking of attributes. Using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data sample weights and the estimated models, we predicted US nationally representative participation rates by subgroups and examined the effect of offering more than one incentive design. External validity was checked by using a completed cluster randomized control trial. RESULTS There were significant subgroup differences in preference toward incentive attributes. There was also a sizable negative response to larger incentive amounts among African Americans, suggesting that higher amounts would reduce participation from this population. We also find that offering participants a menu of incentive designs to choose from would increase reach more than offering higher reward amounts. CONCLUSIONS We confirmed the existence of preference heterogeneity and the importance of subgroup-targeted incentive designs in any evidence-based weight control program to maximize population reach and reduce health disparities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wen You
- Department of Public Health Science, School of Medicine, University of Virginia, University of Virginia Cancer Center, Charlottesville, VA USA
| | | | - Kevin J. Boyle
- Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Willis Blackwood Real Estate, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA USA
| | - Tzeyu L. Michaud
- Department of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE USA
| | - Chris Parmeter
- Department of Economics, University of Miami, Miami, FL USA
| | - Richard W. Seidel
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA USA
| | - Paul A. Estabrooks
- Department of Health Promotion, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bryant M, Burton W, Collinson M, Farrin A, Nixon J, Stevens J, Roberts K, Foy R, Rutter H, Copsey B, Hartley S, Tubeuf S, Brown J. A cluster RCT and process evaluation of an implementation optimisation intervention to promote parental engagement enrolment and attendance in a childhood obesity prevention programme: results of the Optimising Family Engagement in HENRY (OFTEN) trial. Trials 2021; 22:773. [PMID: 34740373 PMCID: PMC8569980 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05757-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2021] [Accepted: 10/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Poor and variable implementation of childhood obesity prevention programmes reduces their population impact and sustainability. We drew upon ethnographic work to develop a multi-level, theory-based implementation optimisation intervention. This intervention aimed to promote parental enrolment and attendance at HENRY (Health Exercise Nutrition for the Really Young), a UK community obesity prevention programme, by changing behaviours of children’s centre and local authority stakeholders. Methods We evaluated the effectiveness of the implementation optimisation intervention on HENRY programme enrolment and attendance over a 12-month implementation period in a cluster randomised controlled trial. We randomised 20 local government authorities (with 126 children’s centres) to HENRY plus the implementation optimisation intervention or to HENRY alone. Primary outcomes were (1) the proportion of centres enrolling at least eight parents per programme and (2) the proportion of centres with a minimum of 75% of parents attending at least five of eight sessions per programme. Trial analyses adjusted for stratification factors (pre-randomisation implementation of HENRY, local authority size, deprivation) and allowed for cluster design. A parallel mixed-methods process evaluation used qualitative interviews and routine monitoring to explain trial results. Results Neither primary outcome differed significantly between groups; 17.8% of intervention centres and 18.0% of control centres achieved the parent enrolment target (adjusted difference − 1.2%; 95% CI − 19.5%, 17.1%); 17.1% of intervention centres and 13.9% of control centres achieved the attendance target (adjusted difference 1.2%; 95% CI − 15.7%, 18.1%). Unexpectedly, the trial coincided with substantial national service restructuring, including centre closures and reduced funds. Some commissioning and management teams stopped or reduced delivery of both HENRY and the implementation optimisation intervention due to competing demands. Thus, at follow-up, HENRY programmes were delivered to approximately half the number of parents compared to baseline (n = 433 vs. 881). Conclusions During a period in which services were reduced by external policies, this first definitive trial found no evidence of effectiveness for an implementation optimisation intervention promoting parent enrolment to and attendance at an obesity prevention programme. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.govNCT02675699. Registered on 4 February 2016 Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05757-w.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Bryant
- Department of Health Sciences and the Hull York Medical School, University of York, YO105DD, York, UK. .,Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
| | - Wendy Burton
- Department of Health Sciences and the Hull York Medical School, University of York, YO105DD, York, UK.,Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - Michelle Collinson
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - Amanda Farrin
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - Jane Nixon
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - June Stevens
- Departments of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Gillings School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA
| | - Kim Roberts
- HENRY Head Office, 8 Elm Place, Old Witney Road, Eynsham, OX29 4BD, UK
| | - Robbie Foy
- Academic Unit of Primary Care, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - Harry Rutter
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK
| | - Bethan Copsey
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - Suzanne Hartley
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| | - Sandy Tubeuf
- Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.,IRSS-IRES, Université catholique de Louvain, B-1348, Louvain, La-Neuve, Belgium
| | - Julia Brown
- Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
| |
Collapse
|