ArticleHealth economics review2019
Attribute development and level selection for a discrete choice experiment to elicit the preferences of health care providers for capitation payment mechanism in Kenya.
Article in Health economics review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- A preference study for applying mHealth to improve the quality of cervical cancer screening management from a supply and demand perspective: a discrete choice experiment.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Development of a discrete choice experiment-an instrument to weight the preferences of registered nursing undergraduates to future employers: a descriptive study.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Women's preferences for HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Understanding women's preferences for long-acting reversible contraceptives in Gondar, Ethiopia: a discrete choice experiment.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Article
- Rural women's preferences for cervical cancer screening via HPV self-sampling: a discrete choice experiment study in chidamoyo, Hurungwe District, Zimbabwe.AJOG global reports · 2024Article
- Discrete Choice Experiment in Evaluating Preferences for Physical Activity: A Mixed-Methods Study of Attributes and Their Levels.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2024Article
- Preference for community health services in people with chronic diseases: a discrete choice experiment in China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Retraction Note: Development of attributes and attribute levels for a discrete choice experiment on patients' and providers' choice for antiretroviral therapy service in Northwest Ethiopia.AIDS research and therapy · 2023Article
- Article
- Ethical Considerations for Discrete Choice Experiments with Caregivers.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2022Article
- Adolescent and young adult preferences for financial incentives to support adherence to antiretroviral therapy in Kenya: a mixed methods study.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2022Article
- Patient and Public Preferences for Coordinated Care in Switzerland: Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2022Review
- Article
- Review
- Incentive preferences for community health volunteers in Kenya: findings from a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Public Preferences for Social Distancing Policy Measures to Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Missouri.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Understanding community health worker incentive preferences in Uganda using a discrete choice experiment.Journal of global health · 2021Article
- Preferences for COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategies in the US: A discrete choice survey.PloS one · 2021Article
- Preferences of healthcare providers for capitation payment in Kenya: a discrete choice experiment.Health policy and planning · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStated preference elicitation methods such as discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are now widely used in the health domain. However, the "quality" of health-related DCEs has come under criticism due to the lack of rigour in conducting and reporting some aspects of the design process such as attribute and level development. Superficially selecting attributes and levels and vaguely reporting the process might result in misspecification of attributes which may, in turn, bias the study and misinform policy. To address these concerns, we meticulously conducted and report our systematic attribute development and level selection process for a DCE to elicit the preferences of health care providers for the attributes of a capitation payment mechanism in Kenya. METHODOLOGY: We used a four-stage process proposed by Helter and Boehler to conduct and report the attribute development and level selection process. The process entailed raw data collection, data reduction, removing inappropriate attributes, and wording of attributes. Raw data was collected through a literature review and a qualitative study. Data was reduced to a long list of attributes which were then screened for appropriateness by a panel of experts. The resulting attributes and levels were worded and pretested in a pilot study. Revisions were made and a final list of attributes and levels decided.
resultsThe literature review unearthed seven attributes of provider payment mechanisms while the qualitative study uncovered 10 capitation attributes. Then, inappropriate attributes were removed using criteria such as salience, correlation, plausibility, and capability of being traded. The resulting five attributes were worded appropriately and pretested in a pilot study with 31 respondents. The pilot study results were used to make revisions. Finally, four attributes were established for the DCE, namely, payment schedule, timeliness of payments, capitation rate per individual per year, and services to be paid by the capitation rate.
conclusionBy rigorously conducting and reporting the process of attribute development and level selection of our DCE,we improved transparency and helped researchers judge the quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.