Brazier, J. R., & Saloman, J. (2017). J., Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780198725923.001.0001

Brazier, J. E., Mulhern, B. J., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Rowen, D., Alonso, J., Vilagut, G., & Ware, J. E. (2020). Developing a new version of the SF-6D health state classification system from the SF-36v2: SF-6Dv2. Medical Care, 58(6), 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001325

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mulhern, B. J., Bansback, N., Norman, R., Brazier, J., & SF-6Dv2 International Project Group. (2020). Valuing the SF-6Dv2 classification system in the United Kingdom using a discrete-choice experiment with duration. Medical Care, 58(6), 566–573. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001324

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Wu, J., Xie, S., He, X., Chen, G., Bai, G., Feng, D., Hu, M., Jiang, J., Wang, X., Wu, H., Wu, Q., & Brazier, J. E. (2021). Valuation of SF-6Dv2 health States in China using time trade-off and discrete-choice experiment with a duration dimension. Pharmacoeconomics, 39(5), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00997-1

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Mulhern, B., Norman, R., & Brazier, J. (2021). Valuing SF-6Dv2 in Australia using an international protocol. In [Protocol] Pharmacoeconomics, 39(10), 1151–1162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01043-4

Article  Google Scholar 

Ameri, H., & Poder, T. G. (2024). Valuing SF-6Dv2 using a discrete choice experiment in a general population in quebec, Canada. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 13, 8404. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.8404

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Shiroiwa, T., Fukuda, T., Ikeda, S., Tsuchiya, A., Stolk, E., & Brazier, J. (2025). Valuation survey for SF-6Dv2 in Japan based on the international protocol. Quality of Life Research, 34(2), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03830-w

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Sullivan, T., Devlin, N., & Hansen, P. (2024). Creating an SF-6Dv2 social value set for new Zealand. Social Science & Medicine, 354, 117073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117073

Article  Google Scholar 

Daroudi, R., Zeraati, H., Poder, T. G., Norman, R., Olyaeemanesh, A., Sari, A. A., & Ameri, H. (2024). Valuing the SF-6Dv2 in the capital of Iran using a discrete choice experiment with duration. Quality of Life Research, 33(7), 1853–1863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03649-5

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Robinson, A., Spencer, A. E., Pinto-Prades, J. L., & Covey, J. A. (2017). Exploring differences between TTO and DCE in the valuation of health States. Medical Decision Making, 37(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16668343

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kim, S. H., Ahn, J., Ock, M., Shin, S., Park, J., Luo, N., & Jo, M. W. (2016). The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Quality of Life Research, 25(7), 1845–1852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1205-2

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Jonker, M. F., Donkers, B., de Bekker-Grob, E., & Stolk, E. A. (2019). Attribute level overlap (and color coding) can reduce task complexity, improve choice consistency, and decrease the dropout rate in discrete choice experiments. Health Economics, 28(3), 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3846

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mühlbacher, A. C., & Bethge, S. (2015). Reduce mortality risk above all else: A discrete-choice experiment in acute coronary syndrome patients. Pharmacoeconomics, 33(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0223-1

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Brett Hauber, A., Mohamed, A. F., Beam, C., Medjedovic, J., & Mauskopf, J. (2011). Patient preferences and assessment of likely adherence to hepatitis C virus treatment. Journal of Viral Hepatitis, 18(9), 619–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2893.2010.01343.x

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Gonzalez, J. M., Johnson, F. R., Runken, M. C., & Poulos, C. M. (2013). Evaluating migraineurs’ preferences for migraine treatment outcomes using a choice experiment. Headache, 53(10), 1635–1650. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.12142

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Shah, K., Bansback, N., Longworth, L., & Viney, R. (2018). How should discrete choice experiments with duration choice sets be presented for the valuation of health states? Medical Decision Making, 38(3), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X17738754

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Veldwijk, J., Lambooij, M. S., van Til, J. A., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G. M., Smit, H. A., & de Wit, G. A. (2015). Words or graphics to present a discrete choice experiment: Does it matter? Patient Education and Counseling, 98(11), 1376–1384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.002

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Waters, E. A., Weinstein, N. D., Colditz, G. A., & Emmons, K. (2006). Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. Journal of Health Communication, 11(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730500526695

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

McCaffery, K. J., Dixon, A., Hayen, A., Jansen, J., Smith, S., & Simpson, J. M. (2012). The influence of graphic display format on the interpretations of quantitative risk information among adults with lower education and literacy: A randomized experimental study. Medical Decision Making, 32(4), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X11424926

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Norman, R., Kemmler, G., Viney, R., Pickard, A. S., Gamper, E., Holzner, B., Nerich, V., & King, M. (2016). Order of presentation of dimensions does not systematically bias utility weights from a discrete choice experiment. Value in Health, 19(8), 1033–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.07.003

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mulhern, B., Shah, K., Janssen, M. F. B., Longworth, L., & Ibbotson, R. (2016). Valuing health using time trade-off and discrete choice experiment methods: Does dimension order impact on health state values? Value in Health, 19(2), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.11.005

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kjaer, T., Bech, M., Gyrd-Hansen, D., & Hart-Hansen, K. (2006). Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: Need we worry? Health Economics, 15(11), 1217–1228. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1117

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Weller, P., Oehlmann, M., Mariel, P., & Meyerhoff, J. (2014). Stated and inferred attribute non-attendance in a design of designs approach. Journal of Choice Modelling, 11, 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2014.04.002

Article  Google Scholar 

Broderick, L., Bjorner, J. B., Lauher-Charest, M., White, M. K., Kosinski, M., Mulhern, B., & Brazier, J. (2022). Deciding between SF-6Dv2 health states: A think-aloud study of decision-making strategies used in discrete choice experiments. Value in Health, 25(12), 2034–2043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.07.018

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research: An introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education Journal, 12(2), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38

Article  Google Scholar 

Robinson, O. C. (2023). Probing in qualitative research interviews: Theory and practice. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 20(3), 382–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2023.2238625

Article  Google Scholar 

Pyo, J., Lee, W., Choi, E. Y., Jang, S. G., & Ock, M. (2023). Qualitative research in healthcare: Necessity and characteristics. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 56(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.22.451

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Khan, T. H., & MacEachen, E. (2022). An alternative method of interviewing: Critical reflections on videoconference interviews for qualitative data collection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, Article 16094069221090063. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221090063

Broderick, L., Bjorner, J. B., Lauher-Charest, M., White, M. K., Kosinski, M., Mulhern, B., & Brazier, J. (2022). Development of the SF-6Dv2 health utility survey: Comprehensibility and patient preference. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 6(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00455-w

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Jonker, M., Stolk, E., & Donkers, B. (Eds.). (2012). Valuing EQ-5D–5L using DCE duration: Too complex or not. EuroQol Plenary Meeting 2012, Netherlands, 2012.

Jonker, M. F., Attema, A. E., Donkers, B., Stolk, E. A., & Versteegh, M. M. (2017). Are health state valuations from the general public biased? A test of health state reference dependency using self-assessed health and an efficient discrete choice experiment. Health Economics, 26(12), 1534–1547. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3445

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Lorgelly, P., Lancsar, E., Ratcliffe, J., Brazier, J., & Viney, R. (2017). Is dimension order important when valuing health states using discrete choice experiments including duration? Pharmacoeconomics, 35(4), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0475-z