Table 1.
Thirty-three patient preference exploration and elicitation methods (adapted from Soekhai et al. [12])
| Methods | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preference exploration methods | Individual methods | In-depth individual interviews |
| (Semi) structured - individual interviews | ||
| Complaints procedures | ||
| Concept mappinga | ||
| Group methods | Delphi method | |
| Dyadic interview | ||
| Citizens’ juries | ||
| Focus groups | ||
| Nominal group technique | ||
| Public meetings | ||
| Preference elicitation methods | Discrete choice based methods | Adaptive conjoint analysis |
| Discrete choice experiment / Best- worst scaling (type 3) | ||
| Indifference methods | Contingent valuation | |
| Person-trade off | ||
| (Probabilistic) threshold technique | ||
| Standard gamble | ||
| Starting known efficacy | ||
| Test trade-off | ||
| Time trade-off | ||
| Rating methods | Allocation of points | |
| Analytic hierarchy process | ||
| Constant sum scaling | ||
| Measure of value | ||
| Outcome prioritization tool | ||
| Repertory grid method | ||
| Swing weighting | ||
| Visual analogue scale | ||
| Ranking methods | Best-worst scaling (type 1)b | |
| Best- worst scaling (type 2)b | ||
| Control preference scale | ||
| Q-methodology | ||
| Qualitative discriminant process | ||
| Self-explicated conjoint | ||
aConcept mapping can be utilised as a group method, but for the purpose of this method comparison it will be taxonomised as an individual method because the success of its data collection is not dependent on the present of multiple participants, unlike the other group techniques
bSoekhai et al. [12] condensed Best-worst scaling types 1 and 2 into one method for the systematic review, but these were separated for this investigation to determine whether they performed differently