ArticleImplementation science communications2024
Using stated preference methods to facilitate knowledge translation in implementation science.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preferences for rapid implementation science: a real-time discrete choice experiment.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- HIV Self-Test Program Preferences Among Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic Men Who Have Sex with Men in the Southern United States: A Discrete Choice Experiment.AIDS and behavior · 2026Article
- Long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis preferences among pregnant and postpartum women in Kenya: results from a discrete choice experiment.AJOG global reports · 2025Article
- Preferences for long-acting injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis service delivery among male and female sex workers in Uganda: A discrete choice experiment.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Developing and Piloting an Instrument to Prioritize the Worries of Female Youth with a Physical Disability and Mothers during the Transition to Adulthood.MDM policy & practiceArticle
- Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Enhancing the arsenal of methods available to shape implementation strategies and bolster knowledge translation is imperative. Stated preference methods, including discrete choice experiments (DCE) and best-worst scaling (BWS), rooted in economics, emerge as robust, theory-driven tools for understanding and influencing the behaviors of both recipients and providers of innovation. This commentary outlines the wide-ranging application of stated preference methods across the implementation continuum, ushering in effective knowledge translation. The prospects for utilizing these methods within implementation science encompass (1) refining and tailoring intervention and implementation strategies, (2) exploring the relative importance of implementation determinants, (3) identifying critical outcomes for key decision-makers, and 4) informing policy prioritization. Operationalizing findings from stated preference research holds the potential to precisely align health products and services with the requisites of patients, providers, communities, and policymakers, thereby realizing equitable impact.
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.