Most studies comparing preferences for prevention or treatment use economic paradigms in which, for example, 'willingness to pay' is assessed via (indirect) bidding games, trade-off questions, or discrete choice experiments.
When a study compared preference for Coke to an unidentified cola, Coke was overwhelmingly chosen.
For example, Sanfey et al. (2003) adapted the Iowa Gambling Task to compare preference for high variance and low-variance decks.
This pilot study compared preferences for involvement in decision-making between older and younger adults with serious mental illness.
This prospective, open-label, multicenter trial compared preferences for buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone in 53 opioid-dependent patients stabilized on buprenorphine.
We sought to compare preferences for arthroplasty versus arthrodesis among patients with proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint osteoarthritis (OA) by quantifying the patient-assigned utility of each operation's attributes.
To compare preferences for laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) over abdominal hysterectomy (AH) by gynecologists who perform LH (group 1), their colleagues (group 2), and gynecologists employed by a hospital that does not provide LH (group 3), and to estimate boundary values of patient characteristics that influence preference for mode of hysterectomy.
This allows us to compare preferences for all attributes measured with a common and interpretable metric either money or efficacy.
We used χ tests to compare preferences for care (life prolonging, limited, comfort, or uncertain) between the two groups.
That study compared preferences for only two options, namely inpatient i.v. vs outpatient PO antibiotic therapies, from parents of children with cancer (Sung et al, 2004).
