ArticleThe patient2026
Severity or Incidence: Labeling Side-Effect Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments.
Article in The patient, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWhile medicine regulation in many countries requires prescription drug labels to classify side effects based on their incidence, when eliciting preferences of patients, most discrete choice experiments (DCEs) group side effects by severity. This mismatch between the presentation of side-effect attribute labels in DCEs and real-world choice contexts may impact patients' choices, bias risk preferences, and threaten external validity. We investigate whether using incidence compared with severity labels impacts preferences and DCE reliability.
methods1105 Dutch respondents aged 60 years or older completed a survey including a DCE on influenza vaccination uptake, receiving either severity (i.e., mild or severe) or incidence (i.e., very rare or very common) attribute labels summarizing the included side effects. We randomized only the attribute labels across respondents, all else was held constant. We evaluated the effect of severity versus incidence labels on maximum acceptable risks (MAR), heterogeneity in side-effect risk preferences, reliability, choice consistency, and predicted uptake. Choice data were analyzed using mixed and heteroscedastic logit models. Other survey questions pertained to demographics, experiences, and attitudes towards the included mild and severe side effects.
resultsRespondents' perceptions of side effect severity did not always correspond to the clinical severity labels. Using severity compared with incidence labels increased the MAR and preference heterogeneity for severe/very rare side effects. No significant differences with regards to MAR and preference heterogeneity for mild/very common side effects, reliability or choice consistency were detected. DISCUSSION: Using severity compared with incidence-based attribute labels impacted MAR estimates and preference heterogeneity, suggesting potential priming effects. However, predicted uptake was not significantly impacted. Still, respondents' severity perception may not align with conventional severity labels, and in many countries, categorizing side effects using incidence-based attribute labels may represent patients' real-world choice contexts more accurately.
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.