↓ Skip to main content

Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues
Published in
Health Economics Review, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13561-015-0077-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Axel C. Mühlbacher, Peter Zweifel, Anika Kaczynski, F. Reed Johnson

Abstract

For optimal solutions in health care, decision makers inevitably must evaluate trade-offs, which call for multi-attribute valuation methods. Researchers have proposed using best-worst scaling (BWS) methods which seek to extract information from respondents by asking them to identify the best and worst items in each choice set. While a companion paper describes the different types of BWS, application and their advantages and downsides, this contribution expounds their relationships with microeconomic theory, which also have implications for statistical inference. This article devotes to the microeconomic foundations of preference measurement, also addressing issues such as scale invariance and scale heterogeneity. Furthermore the paper discusses the basics of preference measurement using rating, ranking and stated choice data in the light of the findings of the preceding section. Moreover the paper gives an introduction to the use of stated choice data and juxtaposes BWS with the microeconomic foundations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Student > Master 8 13%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 20%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 16 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 July 2023.
All research outputs
#14,455,265
of 25,145,981 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#175
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,295
of 408,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,145,981 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 408,197 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.