Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Decision Making: P-value Method01:09

Decision Making: P-value Method

The process of hypothesis testing based on the P-value method includes calculating the P- value using the sample data and interpreting it.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim  is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses:  a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can have a...
Decision Making: Traditional Method01:14

Decision Making: Traditional Method

The process of hypothesis testing based on the traditional method includes calculating the critical value, testing the value of the test statistic using the sample data, and interpreting these values.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Randomized Experiments01:13

Randomized Experiments

The randomization process involves assigning study participants randomly to experimental or control groups based on their probability of being equally assigned. Randomization is meant to eliminate selection bias and balance known and unknown confounding factors so that the control group is similar to the treatment group as much as possible. A computer program and a random number generator can be used to assign participants to groups in a way that minimizes bias.
Simple randomization
Simple...
Study Designs in Epidemiology01:20

Study Designs in Epidemiology

Epidemiological study designs are fundamental tools for investigating the distribution, determinants, and control of health conditions in populations. They help researchers understand the relationships between exposures and outcomes, and they broadly fall into two categories: "observational" and "experimental" studies.
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies.
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs01:15

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding01:25

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Fit for purpose? Assessing the robustness of discrete choice experiment designs in the context of evolving health technologies.

Social science & medicine (1982)·2026
Same author

Validating and updating the OHTS-EGPS model predicting 5-year glaucoma risk among patients with ocular hypertension using electronic medical records: a cohort study.

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)·2026
Same author

Stated Preferences for Systemic Treatments for Prostate Cancer: A Targeted Review of the Discrete-Choice Experiment Literature.

The patient·2026
Same author

FAK inhibition following acute olfactory epithelial inflammation promotes neurogenesis and functional recovery through stem cell CNTF.

Stem cells (Dayton, Ohio)·2026
Same author

Is next generation sequencing for the diagnosis of rare diseases worth its cost? A user-based approach to valuation.

The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care·2025
Same author

A contribution to the anatomy of two rare cetacean species: The hourglass dolphin (Cephalorhynchus cruciger) and the spectacled porpoise (Phocoena dioptrica).

Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007)·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 26, 2026

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
14:43

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting

Published on: January 12, 2018

Involving the public in priority setting: a case study using discrete choice experiments.

Verity Watson1, Andrew Carnon, Mandy Ryan

  • 1Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD UK. v.watson@abdn.ac.uk

Journal of Public Health (Oxford, England)
|December 17, 2011
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Incorporating public preferences through discrete choice experiments (DCEs) helps healthcare organizations prioritize resources effectively. DCEs provide a transparent method for decision-making, ensuring public values guide resource allocation.

More Related Videos

Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting
06:16

Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting

Published on: June 6, 2020

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 26, 2026

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
14:43

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting

Published on: January 12, 2018

Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting
06:16

Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting

Published on: June 6, 2020

Area of Science:

  • Health Services Research
  • Health Economics
  • Decision Science

Background:

  • Healthcare organizations face increasing pressure to optimize resource allocation.
  • Integrating public preferences into priority-setting is crucial for equitable healthcare.
  • Traditional methods may not fully capture public values in resource allocation decisions.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To apply a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to quantify public preferences for healthcare resource allocation.
  • To generate weights reflecting public values for use in a priority-setting exercise.
  • To rank development bids within a healthcare organization based on public preferences.

Main Methods:

  • A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed with ten attributes: location, public consultation, technology, service availability, patient involvement, care management, evidence, health gain, risk avoidance, and priority area.
  • DCE responses from 68 members of the public were collected.
  • Weighted benefit scores were calculated from DCE data to rank 95 development bids.

Main Results:

  • Public preferences significantly influenced prioritization, with large health gains, team-based care, advanced technology, and 24-hour availability being highly valued.
  • Local priorities were deemed more important than national ones.
  • The ranked list of bids served as a practical tool for informing prioritization decisions.

Conclusions:

  • Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) provide a theoretically sound and practical approach for incorporating public input into healthcare priority setting.
  • DCEs facilitate accessible, transparent, and streamlined decision-making processes.
  • This method enhances the alignment of healthcare resource allocation with public values.