ArticlePharmacoEconomics2024
A Reporting Checklist for Discrete Choice Experiments in Health: The DIRECT Checklist.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
82 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Preferences for AI-Enabled Health Care Technologies: Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments and Reporting Quality Assessment Using the DIRECT Checklist.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Patient Preferences Regarding Menopausal Symptoms and Treatments: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Stated-Preference Studies.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- Understanding Patient Preferences for Medication Process Attributes: A Systematic Literature Review.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- Public Preferences for Emerging Cancer Screening Modalities: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments on Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccinations.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences of Cancer Survivors for Follow-Up Care: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- Preferences for the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Breast Cancer Screening in Australia: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2025Trial
- What Australian young adults with disability are prepared and willing to pay to exercise in a gym: An online survey and discrete choice experiment.JSAMS plus · 2026Article
- Caregiver Preferences for AI-Supported Telemedicine in Pediatric Palliative Care: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of palliative care · 2026Article
- Designing National Programmes for Expanded Carrier Screening: Results from a Discrete-Choice Experiment in Singapore.The patient · 2026Article
- Developing an Australian Value Set for the COCOON Carer Quality-of-Life Measure for Use in Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Developing a prospective ethical governance framework for a discrete choice experiment involving children aged 6-12 years: the PREF-ANX Kids study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Treatment Preferences of Physicians of Pediatric Patients with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in the United States and Canada: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Neurology and therapy · 2026Article
- Treatment Preferences for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in Harbin, China: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Patients, Caregivers, and Hematologists.The patient · 2026Article
- Value of Knowing the Risk of Developing a Neurodegenerative Disease: A Discrete Choice Experiment.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Severity or Incidence: Labeling Side-Effect Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments.The patient · 2026Article
- Societal Preferences for Assessment Pathways of Rare Disease Drugs: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Preferences for Video Consultations in Family Health Stations: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Women.The patient · 2026Article
22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReporting standards of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) in health have not kept pace with the growth of this method, with multiple reviews calling for better reporting to improve transparency, assessment of validity and translation. A key missing piece has been the absence of a reporting checklist that details minimum standards of what should be reported, as exists for many other methods used in health economics.
methodsThis paper reports the development of a reporting checklist for DCEs in health, which involved a scoping review to identify potential items and a Delphi consensus study among 45 DCE experts internationally to select items and guide the wording and structure of the checklist. The Delphi study included a best-worst scaling study for prioritisation.
conclusionsThe final checklist is presented along with guidance on how to apply it. This checklist can be used by authors to ensure that sufficient detail of a DCE's methods are reported, providing reviewers and readers with the information they need to assess the quality of the study for themselves. Embedding this reporting checklist into standard practice for health DCEs offers an opportunity to improve consistency of reporting standards, thereby enabling transparency of review and facilitating comparison of studies and their translation into policy and practice.
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.