Academic Papers – SurveyEngine GmbH

Academic Papers

Here are the academic papers where SurveyEngine was a key contributor or provided fieldwork management and technology.

2022

Edouard Louis, Corey A Siegel, Barbara James, Sebastian Heidenreich, Nicolas Krucien, Subrata Ghosh (2022) Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Have Heterogeneous Treatment Preferences That Are Largely Determined by the Avoidance of Abdominal Pain and Side Effects [P-POWER IBD Study]Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis, jjac130, https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac130

Barthold, D., Brah, A.T., Graham, S.M. et al. Improvements to Survey Design from Pilot Testing a Discrete-Choice Experiment of the Preferences of Persons Living with HIV for Long-Acting Antiretroviral Therapies. Patient 15, 513–520 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-022-00581-z

Raghunandan, R., Howard, K., Marra, C.A. et al. Identifying New Zealand Public Preferences for Pharmacist Prescribers in Primary Care: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Patient 15, 77–92 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00529-9

Grunert K. G., Futtrup, R. (2022) Does Organic Labelling Affect Restaurant Choice? A Study on the Danish Organic Cuisine Label. Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California from Agricultural and Applied Economics Association

Seo, J., Heidenreich, S., Aldalooj, E. et al. 2022. Patients’ Preferences for Connected Insulin Pens: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes. Patient. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-022-00610-x

Merkert, R., Bliemer, M. Fayyaz, M. Consumer preferences for innovative and traditional last-mile parcel delivery. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2022. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/28556.

Vass, C., Boeri, M., Karim, S., Marshall, D., Craig, B., Ho, K. A., Mott, D., Ngorsuraches, S., Badawy, S. M., Mühlbacher, A., Gonzalez, J. M., Heidenreich, S., Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Discrete-Choice Experiments: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report. ISPOR REPORT VOLUME 25, ISSUE 5, P685-694, MAY 01, 2022 doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.01.012

Rowen, D., Powell, P. A., Hole, R. A., Aragon, M. J., Castelli, A., Jacobs, R. 2022. Valuing quality in mental healthcare: A discrete choice experiment eliciting preferences from mental healthcare service users, mental healthcare professionals and the general population. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114885. Social Science & Medicine, Volume 301, 2022, 114885, ISSN 0277-9536.

Mitchell, B. D., Rentz, A. M., Kummer, S., Yan, Y., Heidenreich, S., Krucien, N., Artime, E., Osumili, B., Rubio, M., & Gelhorn, H. L. (2022). People With Diabetes and Caregivers Prefer Rescue Glucagon Treatment With a Wider Storage Temperature Range and a Nasal Administration When Efficacy is Similar: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Spain. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968221095882

Rowen, D., Wickramasekera, N., Hole, A. R., Keetharuth, A., Wailoo, A. 2022. A Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit General Population Preferences Around the Factors Influencing the Choice to Make Clinical Negligence Claims. Value in Health, April 05, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.01.020

Wells, I., Simons, G., Stack, R., Mallen, C., Nightingale. P., Raza. K., Falahee. J. 2022. OP0264-HPR Perspectives on Approaches to Predict the Development of Rheumatoid Arthititis: A Quantitative Assessment of Patients and Their First Degree Relatives. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2020;79:165-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-eular.2175

McLeodac, C., Woodde, J., Mulrennanef, S., Moreye, S., Schultz, A., Messera, M., Spaapen, K., Wui, Y., Mascaro, S., Smyth, A. J., Blyth, C. C., Webb, S., Snelling, T. S., Norman, R. 2022. Preferred health outcome states following treatment for pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcf.2021.11.010

Rogers, H. J., Sagebiel, J., Marshman, Z., Rodd, H. D., Rowen, D. 2022. Adolescent valuation of CARIES-QC-U: a child-centred preference-based measure of dental caries. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2022 Feb 3; 20(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s12955-022-01918-w.

Heidenreich, S., Seo, J., Aldalooj, E., Poon, J.L., Spaepen, E., Eby, E. & Newson, R. – January 2022 POSB372 Patients’ Preferences for Connected Insulin Pens: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Diabetes Patients in the UK and US https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1139

Ayyagari, R., Goldschmidt, D., Zhou, M., Ribalov, R., Caroff, S. N. & Leo, S. 2022 Defining utility values for patients with tardive dyskinesia. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2021.2022918

Merkert, R., Bliemer, M. C. J., Fayyaz, M. 2022. Consumer preferences for innovative and traditional last-mile parcel delivery. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2021-0013

Freitag, M., Hofstetter, N. Pandemic personality: Emotional reactions, political and social preferences across personality traits in times of CoronaCurr Psychol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02493-x

2021

Manipis, K., Street, D., Cronin, P. et al. 2021. Exploring the Trade-Off Between Economic and Health Outcomes During a Pandemic: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lockdown Policies in Australia. Patient 14, 359–371 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00503-5

Yim, J., Arora, S., Shaw, J., Street D. J., Pearce, A., Viney, R., 2021. Patient Preferences for Anxiety and Depression Screening in Cancer Care: A Discrete Choice Experiment. PREFERENCE-BASED ASSESSMENTS| Volume 24, Issue 12, P1835-1844, December 01, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.05.014

Bushell, J., Merkert, R., Beck, M. J., 2021. Consumer preferences for operator collaboration in intra- and intercity transport ecosystems: Institutionalising platforms to facilitate MaaS 2.0, Received 9 August 2021, Revised 28 February 2022, Accepted 15 April 2022, Available online 22 April 2022, Version of Record 22 April 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.04.013

Simons. G., Veldwijk, J., Santostefano, R. D., Englbrecht, M., Radawski, C., Valor. L., Raza, K., Falahee. M. 2021. OP0160-HPR Preferences for Treatments to Prevent Rheumatoid Arthritis: Discrete Choice Survey of General Populations in the United Kingdom, Germany and Romania. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2021;80:96-97.

Merkert, R., Beck, M. J., Bushell, J. 2021. Will It Fly? Adoption of the road pricing framework to manage drone use of airspace. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.06.001

Kolarova, V., Cherchi, E., 2021. Impact of trust and travel experiences on the value of travel time savings for autonomous driving. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/277005/CF3EE63D-959E-4F49-8162-233231033361.pdf.

Kenny, P., Street, D. J., Hall, J., Agar M., Phillips J. 2021. Valuing End-of-Life Care for Older People with Advanced Cancer: Is Dying at Home Important? The Patient – Patient-Centered Outcomes Research volume 14, pages 803–813 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00517-z

Yu. A., Street, D., Viney, R., Goodall. S., Pearce, A., Haywood, F., Haas. M., Battaglini, E., Goldstein, D., Timmins, H., Park, S. B. 2021. Clinical assessment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a discrete choice experiment of patient preferences. Supportive Care in Cancer volume 29, pages6379–6387 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06196-8

Burge, P., Lu, H. & Phillips, W. 2021. Understanding Teaching Retention Using a discrete choice experiment to measure teacher retention in England. Office of Manpower Economics, 2021. rand.org/t/RRA181-1.

Jansen, F., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., Gamper, E., Norman, R., Holzner, B., King, M., Kemmler, G. 2021. Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: the Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D. Qual Life Res (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02767-8

Rogers, H. J., Marshman, Z., Rodd. H. & Rowen, D. 2021. Discrete choice experiments or best-worst scaling? A qualitative study to determine the suitability of preference elicitation tasks in research with children and young people. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes 5, 26 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00302-4

Lehmann, J., Holzner, B., Giesinger, J. M., Bottomley, A., Ansari, S., von Butler, L,. Kemmler, G. 2021. Functional health and symptoms in Spain before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health. 2021 May 1;21(1):837. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10899-2. PMID: 33933042; PMCID: PMC8087887

Lu, Y. E., Okoro, T., Amelio, J., Pao, C., Heidenreich, S., Seo, J., Refoios Camejo, R. 2021. Patients’ and physicians’ preferences for treatment of anemia of chronic kidney disease: design methods of a discrete choice experiment. National Kidney Foundation 2021 Spring Clinical Meetings

Norman, R., Robinson, S., Dickinson, H. et al. 2021. Public Preferences for Allocating Ventilators in an Intensive Care Unit: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Patient 14, 319–330 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00498-z

Manipis, K., Street, D., Cronin, P. et al. 2021. Exploring the Trade-Off Between Economic and Health Outcomes During a Pandemic: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Lockdown Policies in Australia. Patient 14359–371 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00503-5

Wang, B., Waygood E. O. D., Daziano, R. A., Patterson, Z., Feinberg, M. 2021. Does hedonic framing improve people’s willingness to pay for vehicle greenhouse gas emissions?. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 98, September 2021, 102973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102973

Claassen, D. O., Goldschmidt, D., Zhou, M., Leo, S., Ribalov, R., Ayyagari, R. 2021 Defining Utility Values for the Chorea Health States in Patients With Huntington’s Disease Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology

Rowen, D., Powell, P., Mukuria, C., Carlton, J., Norman, R., Brazier, J. 2021. Deriving a Preference-Based Measure for People With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy From the DMD-QoL. Value in Health Volume 24, Issue 10, October 2021, Pages 1499-1510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.03.007

2020

Blake, M. R., Dubey, S., Swait, J., Lancsar, E., Ghijben, P., An integrated modelling approach examining the influence of goals, habit and learning on choice using visual attention data, Journal of Business Research, Volume 117, 2020, Pages 44-57, ISSN 0148-2963, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.040.

Cherchi, E., Vuong, Q., & Stergiou, A. 2020. Using EEG to understand how our brain elaborate information in stated choice experiments: Easy versus hard tasks in the choice of vehicles. 10.1101/2020.01.29.926162.

Su, J., Li, N., Joshi, N., et al. 2020. Patient and caregiver preferences for hemophilia A treatments: A discrete choice experiment. Haemophilia. 2020; 00: 1– 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14137

Gamper, E. M., King, M. T., Norman, R., et al. EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Quality of Life Research: an International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation. 2020 Sep;29(9):2485-2495. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-020-02536-z.

Norman, R. & Moorin, R. & Maxwell, S., Robinson, S. & Brims, F. 2020. Public Attitudes on Lung Cancer Screening and Radiation Risk: A Best-Worst Experiment. Value in Health. 23. 10.1016/j.jval.2019.11.006.

Norman, R., Anstey, M., Hasani, A. et al. 2020. What Matters to Potential Patients in Chemotherapy Service Delivery? A Discrete Choice Experiment. Applied Health Econ Health Policy 18, 589–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00555-y

Anstey, M.H., Mitchell, I.A., Corke, C. et al. 2020. Population Preferences for Treatments When Critically Ill: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Patient 13, 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00410-1

Pasha M. M., Hickman M. D., Prato C. G. 2020. Modeling Mode Choice of Air Passengers’ Ground Access to Brisbane Airport. Transportation Research Record. September 2020. doi:10.1177/0361198120949534

Jiang, R., Kohlmann, T., Lee, T.A. et al. 2020. Increasing respondent engagement in composite time trade-off tasks by imposing three minimum trade-offs to improve data quality. Eur J Health Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01224-6

Nerich, V., Gamper, E.M., Norman, R. et al. 2020. French Value-Set of the QLU-C10D, a Cancer-Specific Utility Measure Derived from the QLQ-C30. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00598-1

Lim D., Norman R., Robinson S. 2020. Consumer preference to utilise a mobile health app: A stated preference experiment. PLoS ONE 15(2): e0229546. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229546

Ong, J. J., de Abreu Lourenco, R., Street, D., Smith, K., Jamil, M. S., Terris-Prestholt, F., Fairley, C. K., McNulty, A., Hynes, A., Johnson, K., Chow, E. P. F., Bavinton, B., Grulich, A., Stoove, M., Holt, M., Kaldor, J., Guy, R. 2020. The Preferred Qualities of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing and Self-Testing Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: A Discrete Choice Experiment, Value in Health, Volume 23, Issue 7, 2020, Pages 870-879, ISSN 1098-3015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.04.1826.

Fruth, E., Kvistad, M., Marshall, J., Pfeifer, L., Rau, L., Sagebiel, J., Soto, D., Tarpey, J., Weir, J., Winiarski, B., 2020. Discrete choice experiment data for street-level urban greening in Berlin, Data in Brief, Volume 28, 2020, 105027, ISSN 2352-3409, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.105027.

Patten, N., Brydon, S., Mulhern, B., Peacock, A., White, B., von Butler, L., Taylor, C., 2020. PCN42 A Real-World Comparison of Utility Values Derived from a Discrete Choice Experiment Versus Patient Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials, Value in Health Regional Issues, Volume 22, Supplement, 2020, Page S12, ISSN 2212-1099, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2020.07.092.

Lanceley, A., Whittaker, C., Bottomley, A., Estimating the impact of COVID-19 on functional health, symptoms and quality of life in the Spanish general population

2019

Sagebiel, J., Winiarski, B., Weir, J., Tarpey, J., Soto, D., Rau, L., Pfeifer, L., Marshall, J., Kvistad, M. & Fruth, E. 2019. Economic valuation of street-level urban greening: A case study from an evolving mixed-use area in Berlin. Land Use Policy. 89. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104237.

Blake, M., R., Lancsar, E., Peeters, A., Backholer, K., 2019. Sugar-sweetened beverage price elasticities in a hypothetical convenience store, Social Science & Medicine, Volume 225, 2019, Pages 98-107, ISSN 0277-9536, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.02.021.

Zawojska, E., Budziński, W., Czajkowski, M., 2019. Controlling for endogeneity of perceived consequentiality in preference modelling. International Choice Modelling Conference 2019

Kemmler, G., Gamper, E., Nerich, V. et al. 2019. German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res 28, 3197–3211 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02283-w

McTaggart-Cowan, H., King, M. T., Norman. R., et al. 2019. The EORTC QLU-C10D: The Canadian Valuation Study and Algorithm to Derive Cancer-Specific Utilities From the EORTC QLQ-C30. MDM Policy & Practice. January 2019. doi:10.1177/2381468319842532.

Norman, R., Mercieca‐Bebber, R., Rowen, D., et al. 2019. U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU‐C10D. Health Economics. 2019; 28: 1385– 1401. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3950

2018

Gamper, E. M., Holzner, B., King, M. T., Norman, R., Viney, R., Nerich, V., Kemmler. G. 2018. Test-Retest Reliability of Discrete Choice Experiment for Valuations of QLU-C10D Health States. Value in Health.

King, M., Viney, R., Pickard, A. S., Rowen, D., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Costa D. S. J., Fayers, P. M., Kemmler, G., McTaggart-Cowen, H., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Peacock, S., Street, D. J., Young, T. A., Norman, R. 2018. Australian Utility Weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a MultiAttribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. PharmacoEconomics. 36(2):225-238.

2017

Olin E, Gu Y, Cutler H. 2017. Exploring the potential use of quality information when choosing between alternative public hospitals for elective surgery.

Cutler H, Gu Y, Olin E. 2017. Will public hospital patients choose a better quality hospital given the choice? A discrete choice experiment.

Cutler, H., Gu, Y., Olin, E. 2017. Assessing choice for public hospital patients. Report of the Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University, Australia.

Meshcheriakova, O., Goodall, S., Viney, R. 2017. Consumer preferences for food processing technologies: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment. IHEA Boston World Congress, Boston, USA.

Kenny, P., Goodall, S., Street., D. J., Greene, J. 2017. Choosing a Doctor: Does Presentation Format Affect the Way Consumers Use Health Care Performance Information. The Patient. 10(45):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0245-9.

SGS Economics and Planning. SurveyEngine. 2017. The Value of Heritage: Summary Report.

2016

Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Lorgelly, P. et al. Is Dimension Order Important when Valuing Health States Using Discrete Choice Experiments Including Duration?. PharmacoEconomics 35, 439–451 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0475-z

Gamper, E., Holzner, B., King, M. T., Norman, R., Kemmler, G. 2016. Trading-off Quality of Life and Survival Time – Feasibility of Web-based Discrete Choice Experiments for QLU-C10D Utility Elicitation in Cancer Patients. Value in Health. 19(7):A746.

Kemmler, G.,, Gamper, E., Nerich V., Norman R., King M. T., Holzner, B. 2016. Comparison of German, French and Polish Utility Weights for The Eortc Utility Instrument QLU-C10D. Value in Health. 19(7):A744-A745.

King, M. T. et al. 2016. Two New Cancer-Specific Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments: EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D. Value in Health 19(7):A807.

King M. T. et. al. 2016. QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research 25(3):625-636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1217-y.

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

Norman, R., Mulhern, B., Viney, R. 2016. The impact of different DCE-based approaches when anchoring utility scores. Pharmacoeconomics 34(8):805-814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0399-7.

Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D. F., Costa, D. S. J., Fayers, P. M., Kemmler, G., Peacock, S., Pickard, A. S., Rowen, D., Street, D., Velikova G., Young, T. A., King, M. T. 2016. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: Feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Quality of Life Research 25(3):637-649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3.

Hole, A. R., Norman, R., Viney R. 2016. Response Patterns in Health State Valuation Using Endogenous Attribute Attendance and Latent Class Analysis. Health Economics 25(2):212-224. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3134.

Goodall, S., Kenny, P., Mu, C., Hall, J., Norman, R., Cumming, J., Street, D., Greene, J. Preferences and choice in primary care: Consumers and Providers. Research Excellence in the Finance and Economics of Primary Health Care, CHERE, University of Technology Sydney, 2016.

McTaggart-Cowan, H., Peacock, S. J., Chan, K., Costa, D., Hoch, J., King, M., Leighl, N., Mittmann, N., Norman, R., Pickard, A. S., Regier, D. A., Viney, R. 2016. Identifying the most effective multi-attribute utility instruments to guide cancer funding decisions in Canada.

2014

Gu Y, Norman R, Viney R. 2014. Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments – a QALY space model approach. Health Economics. 23(9):1098-1114. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3066.

Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, Burgess L, Cronin P, King M, Ratcliffe J, Street D. 2014. Valuing SF-6D health states using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Medical Decision Making. 34(6):773-786. http://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13503499.

Viney R., Norman R, Brazier J, Cronin P, King M, Ratcliffe J, Street D. 2014. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Economics. 23(6):729-742. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2953.

2013

Norman, R., Hall, J., Street, D., Viney, R. 2013. Efficiency and Equity: A stated preference approach. Health Economics 22(5):568-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.2827. 

Norman, R., Cronin, P., Viney, R. 2013. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states.Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 11(3):287-298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0035-z.

Norman, R., Viney, R., Brazier, J., Burgess, L., Cronin, P., King, M., Ratcliffe, J., & Street, D. (2013). Valuing SF-6D Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13503499

2011

Viney, R., Norman, R., King, M.T., Cronin, P., Street D.J., Knox, S., Ratcliffe, J. 2011. Time Trade-Off Derived EQ-5D Weights for Australia. Value in Health. 14(6):928-936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.009.

Scroll to Top