↓ Skip to main content

Discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services: a systematic review
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11096-015-0221-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline Vass, Ewan Gray, Katherine Payne

Abstract

Background Two previous systematic reviews have summarised the application of discrete choice experiments to value preferences for pharmacy services. These reviews identified a total of twelve studies and described how discrete choice experiments have been used to value pharmacy services but did not describe or discuss the application of methods used in the design or analysis or analysis. Aims (1) To update the most recent systematic review and critically appraise current discrete choice experiments of pharmacy services in line with published reporting criteria and; (2) To provide an overview of key methodological developments in the design and analysis of discrete choice experiments. Methods The review used a comprehensive strategy to identify eligible studies (published between 1990 and 2015) by searching electronic databases for key terms related to discrete choice and best-worst scaling (BWS) experiments. All healthcare choice experiments were then hand-searched for key terms relating to pharmacy. Data were extracted using a published checklist. Results A total of 17 discrete choice experiments eliciting preferences for pharmacy services were identified for inclusion in the review. No BWS studies were identified. The studies elicited preferences from a variety of populations (pharmacists, patients, students) for a range of pharmacy services. Most studies were from a United Kingdom setting, although examples from Europe, Australia and North America were also identified. Discrete choice experiments for pharmacy services tended to include more attributes than non-pharmacy choice experiments. Few studies reported the use of qualitative research methods in the design and interpretation of the experiments (n = 9) or use of new methods of analysis to identify and quantify preference and scale heterogeneity (n = 4). No studies reported the use of Bayesian methods in their experimental design design. Conclusion Incorporating more sophisticated methods in the design of pharmacy-related discrete choice experiments could help researchers produce more efficient experiments which are better suited to valuing complex pharmacy services. Pharmacy-related discrete choice experiments could also benefit from more sophisticated analytical techniques such as investigations into scale and preference heterogeneity. Employing these sophisticated methods for both design and analysis could extend the usefulness of discrete choice experiments to inform health and pharmacy policy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 4%
Unknown 75 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 24%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 9%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 25 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2015.
All research outputs
#6,740,754
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#361
of 1,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,136
of 387,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,082 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 387,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.