Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Can a Discrete Choice Experiment contribute to person-centred healthcare?

Mette Kjer Kaltoft, Jesper Bo Neilsen, Glenn Salkeld, Jack Dowie


In person-centred decision making the relative importance of the considerations that matter to the person is elicited and combined, at the point of decision, with the best estimates available on the performance of the available options on those criteria. Whatever procedure is used to implement this in a clinical decision, average preferences emerging from group or subgroup research cannot contribute directly, since they can have only a statistical relationship with the preferences of the individual person. The precise relationship is knowable by eliciting those of the individual concerned, but there would be little point consulting the averages if this is done. A scan of recent Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) publications reveals frequent claims that the group-level results can somehow contribute to, or facilitate, better clinical decision making. Typically there are only vague or ambiguous indications of how this could happen, the ambiguity often arising from the use and positioning of the apostrophe in the words persons and patients. Only when the person opts out of preference provision and asks to be treated as ‘average’, can the results of a DCE have clinical relevance in genuinely person-centred healthcare. One cannot derive an ought from an is and one cannot derive an I from a they. DCE researchers should refrain from implying that their results could, let alone should, have any impact on person-centred clinical decisions. Group-level DCE results are clearly conceptually appropriate for health system or service decisions, but the suggestion that they have clinical relevance is a serious deterrent to the development and provision of effective means of individual preference elicitation and specification at the point of decision. Those who wish to foster person-centred care should be alert to the dangers of claims based on group-level analyses such as DCEs.



Discrete Choice Experiment; Conjoint Analysis; person-centred care; patient-centred care; clinical decision making; preferences

Full Text:



Bridges, J.F.P., Hauber, A.B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L.A., Regier, D.A., Johnson, F.R. & Mauskopf, J. (2011). Conjoint Analysis applications in health-a checklist: A Report of the ISPOR good research practices for Conjoint Analysis task force. Value in Health 14, 403-413.

Flynn, T.N., Louviere, J.J., Peters, T.J. & Coast, J. (2007). Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. Journal of Health Economics 26, 171-189.

Louviere, J.J., Flynn, T.N. & Carson, R.T. (2010). Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Choice Modeling 3, 57-72.

de Bekker-Grob, E.W. (2009). Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Care: Theory and Applications. PhD thesis Erasmus University ISBN 978-90-9024498-3.

Whitty, J.A., Lancsar, E., Rixon, K., Golenko, X. & Ratcliffe, J. (2014). A Systematic Review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting. Patient 7, 365-386.

Granata, A. & Hillman, A. (1998). Competing practice guidelines: using cost-effectiveness analysis to make optimal decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine 128, 56-63.

Basu, A. & Meltzer, D. (2007). Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Medical Decision Making 27, 112-127.

Basu, A. (2011). Economics of individualization in comparative effectiveness research and a basis for a patient-centered health care. Journal of Health Economics 30, 549-559.

Johnson, P., Bancroft, T., Barron, R., Legg, J., Li, X., Watson, H., Watkins, A. & Marshall, D.A. (2014). Discrete choice experiment to estimate breast cancer patients’ preferences and willingness to pay for prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors. Value in Health 17 (4) 380-389.

Kløjgaard, M.E., Manniche, C., Pedersen, L.B., Bech, M. & Søgaard, R. (2014). Patient preferences for treatment of low back pain - a discrete choice experiment. Value in Health 17, 390-396.

Bewtra, M. & Johnson, F.R. (2013). Assessing Patient Preferences for Treatment Options and Process of Care in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Critical Review of Quantitative Data. Patient. 6, 241-255.

Wittink, M.N., Cary, M., Tenhave, T., Baron, J. & Gallo, J.J. (2010). Towards patient-centered care for depression: conjoint methods to tailor treatment based on preferences. Patient. 3, 145-157.

Wittink, M.N., Morales, K.H., Cary, M., Gallo, J.J. & Bartels, S.J. (2013). Towards personalizing treatment for depression: developing treatment values markers. Patient 6, 35-43.

de Bekker-Grob, E.W., Ryan, M. & Gerard, K. (2012). Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Economics 21, 145-172.

Boone, D., Mallett, S., Zhu, S., Yao, G.L., Bell, N., Ghanouni, A., von Wagner, C., Taylor, S.A., Altman, D.G., Lilford, R. & Halligan, S. (2013). Patients’ and healthcare professionals’ values regarding true- & false-positive diagnosis when Colorectal Cancer screening by CT Colonography : Discrete Choice Experiment. PLoS One 8, e80767.

Fraenkel, L., Bogardus, S.T., Concato, J., Felson, D.T. & Wittink, D.R. (2004). Patient preferences for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 63, 1372-1378.

Fraenkel, L., Gulanski, B. & Wittink, D. (2006). Patient treatment preferences for osteoporosis. Arthritis Care and Research 55, 729-735.

Fraenkel, L., Chodkowski, D., Lim, J. & Garcia-Tsao, G. (2010). Patients’ preferences for treatment of hepatitis C. Medical Decision Making 30, 45-57.

Fraenkel, L., Rabidou, N., Wittink, D. & Fried, T. (2007). Improving informed decision-making for patients with knee pain. Journal of Rheumatology 34, 1894-1898.

Rochon, D., Eberth, J.M., Fraenkel, L., Volk, R.J. & Whitney, S.N. (2014). Elderly patients’ experiences using adaptive conjoint analysis software as a decision aid for osteoarthritis of the knee. Health Expectations 17, 840-851.

de Achaval, S., Fraenkel, L., Volk, R.J., Cox, V. & Suarez-Almazor, M.E. (2011). Impact of educational and patient decision aids on decisional conflict associated with total knee arthroplasty. Arthritis Care and Research 64, 229-237.

Pieterse, A.H., Stiggelbout, A.M. & Marijnen, C.A.M. (2010). Methodologic evaluation of adaptive conjoint analysis to assess patient preferences: an application in oncology. Health Expectations 13, 392-405.

Pieterse, A.H., Berkers, F., Baas-Thijssen, M.C.M., Marijnen, C.A.M & Stiggelbout, A.M. (2010). Adaptive Conjoint Analysis as individual preference assessment tool: feasibility through the internet and reliability of preferences. Patient Education and Counseling 78, 224-233.

Mark, T.L. & Swait, J. (2003). Using stated preference modeling to forecast the effect of medication attributes on prescriptions of alcoholism medications. Value in Health 6, 474-482.

Krucien, N., Gafni, A., Fleury, B. & Pelletier-Fleury, N. (2013). Patients’ with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) preferences and demand for treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Health Economics 68 (5) 487-488.

Salampessy, B.H., Veldwijk, J., Schuit, J.A., van den Brekel-Dijkstra, K., Neslo, R.E.J., de Wit, G.A. & Lambooij, M.S. (2015). The predictive value of Discrete Choice Experiments in public health: An exploratory application. Patient doi 10.1007/s40271-015-0115-2.

Veldwijk, J., Lambooij, M.S., van Gils, P.F., Struijs, J.N., Smit, H.A. & de Wit, G.A. (2013). Type 2 diabetes patients’ preferences and willingness to pay for lifestyle programs: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Public Health 13, 1099.



  • There are currently no refbacks.