{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,16]],"date-time":"2026-06-16T12:58:16Z","timestamp":1781614696511,"version":"3.54.5"},"reference-count":45,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,29]],"date-time":"2025-10-29T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1761696000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,29]],"date-time":"2025-10-29T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1761696000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/100001808","name":"National Institute of Public Health","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/100001808","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"crossref"}]},{"name":"Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant","award":["PG632662"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["PG632662"]}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Health Qual Life Outcomes"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Purpose<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General (FACT-G) questionnaire is frequently used to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in cancer patients. However, data obtained using the FACT-G cannot be directly used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The newly developed FACT Eight Dimensions (FACT-8D) is a preference-based measure that generates health utilities scores from 9 of the 27 FACT-G items, representing eight HRQOL domains (Nausea, Pain, Fatigue, Sleep, Work, Worry, Sadness, Support from family\/friends). This study aimed to create a Japanese FACT-8D value set.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>A cross-sectional online survey of the Japanese general population recruited participants via a Japanese online panel, quota sampled by age (\u2265\u200918 years) and sex. FACT-8D valuation data were collected with a discrete choice experiment. The valuation task required each participant to consider 16 pairs of hypothetical health states, randomly assigned per participant from 800 choice-sets. Preference weights were obtained from conditional logit models by dividing estimated HRQOL coefficients by the life duration coefficient.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Data from 2320 participants were used to assess sample representativeness and estimate the Japanese value set. All preference weights other than Worry Level 2 were negative and increased in absolute terms in progressively higher levels of adverse HRQOL impact. The most influential domains for health utilities were Pain and Nausea, followed by Work problems. Fatigue, Sleep, Support, Sadness, and health Worry had moderate influences on health utilities. The lowest score, for the pit state [55555555], was \u2212\u20090.60. This value is much lower than that of the EORTC QLU-C10D pit state [4444444444], -0.22. Health states were consistently scored higher in the USA, Australia and the UK than in Japan. Canadian health states are generally lower than for Japan, but not universally so.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>We established the Japanese FACT-8D value set based on the internationally common protocol. The value set provides another option for quantifying health utilities for cancer outcomes. This contributes to improving the feasibility of deriving health utilities from the widely used FACT-G.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1186\/s12955-025-02442-3","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,29]],"date-time":"2025-10-29T12:12:45Z","timestamp":1761739965000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Japanese value set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension (FACT-8D) cancer-specific preference-based quality of life instrument"],"prefix":"10.1186","volume":"23","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-3055-9932","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"T.","family":"Shiroiwa","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-7192-2887","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"M. T.","family":"King","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-5013-8361","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"R.","family":"Campbell","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"T.","family":"Murata","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"K.","family":"Shimozuma","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"T.","family":"Fukuda","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-3112-3893","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"R.","family":"Norman","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,29]]},"reference":[{"key":"2442_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"270","DOI":"10.1017\/S0266462320000264","volume":"36","author":"T Shiroiwa","year":"2020","unstructured":"Shiroiwa T. Cost-effectiveness evaluation for pricing medicines and devices: A new value-based price adjustment system in Japan. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:270\u20136.","journal-title":"Int J Technol Assess Health Care"},{"key":"2442_CR2","unstructured":"Center for Outcomes Research and Economic Evaluation for Health (C2H). Guideline for Preparing Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation to the Central Social Insurance Medical Council 2024."},{"key":"2442_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"704","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2016.06.001","volume":"19","author":"SE Wolowacz","year":"2016","unstructured":"Wolowacz SE, Briggs A, Belozeroff V, Clarke P, Doward L, Goeree R, Lloyd A, Norman R. Estimating Health-State utility for economic models in clinical studies: an ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2016;19:704\u201319.","journal-title":"Value Health"},{"key":"2442_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"587","DOI":"10.1146\/annurev.publhealth.21.1.587","volume":"21","author":"PJ Neumann","year":"2000","unstructured":"Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:587\u2013611.","journal-title":"Annu Rev Public Health"},{"key":"2442_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1245","DOI":"10.1007\/s10198-020-01195-8","volume":"21","author":"M Kennedy-Martin","year":"2020","unstructured":"Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W, Busschbach J, Boye KS. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of National health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21:1245\u201357.","journal-title":"Eur J Health Econ"},{"key":"2442_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"33","DOI":"10.1007\/s40273-017-0546-9","volume":"35","author":"D Rowen","year":"2017","unstructured":"Rowen D, Brazier J, Ara R, Azzabi Zouraq I. The role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based measures in health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;35:33\u201341.","journal-title":"PharmacoEconomics"},{"key":"2442_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"625","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-015-1217-y","volume":"25","author":"MT King","year":"2016","unstructured":"King MT, Costa DS, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, Cella DF, Fayers PM, Grimison P, Janda M, Kemmler G, Norman R, et al. QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:625\u201336.","journal-title":"Qual Life Res"},{"key":"2442_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"365","DOI":"10.1093\/jnci\/85.5.365","volume":"85","author":"NK Aaronson","year":"1993","unstructured":"Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, de Haes JC, et al. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365\u201376.","journal-title":"J Natl Cancer Inst"},{"key":"2442_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"585","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2020.11.004","volume":"24","author":"JM Giesinger","year":"2021","unstructured":"Giesinger JM, Efficace F, Aaronson N, Calvert M, Kyte D, Cottone F, Cella D, Gamper EM. Past and current practice of patient-reported outcome measurement in randomized cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Value Health. 2021;24:585\u201391.","journal-title":"Value Health"},{"key":"2442_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1865","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-024-03655-7","volume":"33","author":"T Shiroiwa","year":"2024","unstructured":"Shiroiwa T, King MT, Norman R, M\u00fcller F, Campbell R, Kemmler G, Murata T, Shimozuma K, Fukuda T. Japanese value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D: A multi-attribute utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2024;33:1865\u201379.","journal-title":"Qual Life Res"},{"key":"2442_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"225","DOI":"10.1007\/s40273-017-0582-5","volume":"36","author":"MT King","year":"2018","unstructured":"King MT, Viney R, Simon Pickard A, Rowen D, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, Cella D, Costa DSJ, Fayers PM, Kemmler G, et al. Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-Attribute utility instrument derived from the Cancer-Specific quality of life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36:225\u201338.","journal-title":"PharmacoEconomics"},{"key":"2442_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"238146831984253","DOI":"10.1177\/2381468319842532","volume":"4","author":"H McTaggart-Cowan","year":"2019","unstructured":"McTaggart-Cowan H, King MT, Norman R, Costa DSJ, Pickard AS, Regier DA, Viney R, Peacock SJ. The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Canadian valuation study and algorithm to derive Cancer-Specific utilities from the EORTC QLQ-C30. MDM Policy Pract. 2019;4:2381468319842532.","journal-title":"MDM Policy Pract"},{"key":"2442_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1385","DOI":"10.1002\/hec.3950","volume":"28","author":"R Norman","year":"2019","unstructured":"Norman R, Mercieca-Bebber R, Rowen D, Brazier JE, Cella D, Pickard AS, Street DJ, Viney R, Revicki D, King MT. U.K. Utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D. Health Econ. 2019;28:1385\u2013401.","journal-title":"Health Econ"},{"key":"2442_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3197","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-019-02283-w","volume":"28","author":"G Kemmler","year":"2019","unstructured":"Kemmler G, Gamper E, Nerich V, Norman R, Viney R, Holzner B, King M. German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2019;28:3197\u2013211.","journal-title":"Qual Life Res"},{"key":"2442_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2485","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-020-02536-z","volume":"29","author":"EM Gamper","year":"2020","unstructured":"Gamper EM, King MT, Norman R, Efficace F, Cottone F, Holzner B, Kemmler G. EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland. Qual Life Res. 2020;29:2485\u201395.","journal-title":"Qual Life Res"},{"key":"2442_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"191","DOI":"10.1007\/s40258-020-00598-1","volume":"19","author":"V Nerich","year":"2021","unstructured":"Nerich V, Gamper EM, Norman R, King M, Holzner B, Viney R, Kemmler G. French Value-Set of the QLU-C10D, a Cancer-Specific utility measure derived from the QLQ-C30. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19:191\u2013202.","journal-title":"Appl Health Econ Health Policy"},{"key":"2442_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2009","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-021-02767-8","volume":"30","author":"F Jansen","year":"2021","unstructured":"Jansen F, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Gamper E, Norman R, Holzner B, King M, Kemmler G. Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: the Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D. Qual Life Res. 2021;30:2009\u201319.","journal-title":"Qual Life Res"},{"key":"2442_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"485","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X211003569","volume":"41","author":"DA Revicki","year":"2021","unstructured":"Revicki DA, King MT, Viney R, Pickard AS, Mercieca-Bebber R, Shaw JW, M\u00fcller F, Norman R. United States utility algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multiattribute utility instrument based on a Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life instrument. Med Decis Mak. 2021;41:485\u2013501.","journal-title":"Med Decis Mak"},{"key":"2442_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1085","DOI":"10.1007\/s40273-021-01058-x","volume":"39","author":"AP Finch","year":"2021","unstructured":"Finch AP, Gamper E, Norman R, Viney R, Holzner B, King M, Kemmler G. Estimation of an EORTC QLU-C10 value set for Spain using a discrete choice experiment. PharmacoEconomics. 2021;39:1085\u201398.","journal-title":"PharmacoEconomics"},{"key":"2442_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Xu RH, Wong EL, Luo N, Norman R, Lehmann J, Holzner B, King MT, Kemmler G. The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study. Eur J Health Econ. 2023.","DOI":"10.1007\/s10198-023-01632-4"},{"key":"2442_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"831","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-023-03569-w","volume":"33","author":"J Lehmann","year":"2024","unstructured":"Lehmann J, Rojas-Concha L, Petersen MA, Holzner B, Norman R, King MT, Kemmler G. Danish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument. Qual Life Res. 2024;33:831\u201341.","journal-title":"Qual Life Res"},{"key":"2442_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"862","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2021.01.007","volume":"24","author":"MT King","year":"2021","unstructured":"King MT, Norman R, Mercieca-Bebber R, Costa DSJ, McTaggart-Cowan H, Peacock S, Janda M, M\u00fcller F, Viney R, Pickard AS, Cella D. The functional assessment of cancer therapy eight dimension (FACT-8D), a Multi-Attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-Specific FACT-General (FACT-G) quality of life questionnaire: development and Australian value set. Value Health. 2021;24:862\u201373.","journal-title":"Value Health"},{"key":"2442_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"570","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.1993.11.3.570","volume":"11","author":"DF Cella","year":"1993","unstructured":"Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, Silberman M, Yellen SB, Winicour P, Brannon J, et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:570\u20139.","journal-title":"J Clin Oncol"},{"key":"2442_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"97","DOI":"10.1186\/s12955-022-02002-z","volume":"20","author":"H McTaggart-Cowan","year":"2022","unstructured":"McTaggart-Cowan H, King MT, Norman R, Costa DSJ, Pickard AS, Viney R, Peacock SJ. The FACT-8D, a new cancer-specific utility algorithm based on the functional assessment of cancer Therapies-General (FACT-G): a Canadian valuation study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2022;20:97.","journal-title":"Health Qual Life Outcomes"},{"key":"2442_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"49","DOI":"10.1007\/s41669-023-00448-5","volume":"8","author":"MT King","year":"2024","unstructured":"King MT, Revicki DA, Norman R, M\u00fcller F, Viney RC, Pickard AS, Cella D, Shaw JW. United States value set for the functional assessment of cancer Therapy-General eight dimensions (FACT-8D), a cancer-Specific Preference-Based quality of life instrument. Pharmacoecon Open. 2024;8:49\u201363.","journal-title":"Pharmacoecon Open"},{"key":"2442_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Norman R, Campbell R, Rowen D, Viney R, Street DJ, M\u00fcller F, Mercieca-Bebber R, Pickard AS, Cella D, Shaw JW, King MT. United Kingdom value set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension (FACT-8D) preference-based quality of life instrument. Eur J Health Econ. 2025, (Accepted).","DOI":"10.1007\/s10198-025-01844-w"},{"key":"2442_CR27","unstructured":"ICC\/ESOMAR. The International Code on Market, Opinion and Social Research and Data Analytics. 2016."},{"key":"2442_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"373","DOI":"10.1007\/s40271-015-0118-z","volume":"8","author":"EW de Bekker-Grob","year":"2015","unstructured":"de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA. Sample size requirements for Discrete-Choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient. 2015;8:373\u201384.","journal-title":"Patient"},{"key":"2442_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"29","DOI":"10.1007\/s40273-018-0714-6","volume":"37","author":"B Mulhern","year":"2019","unstructured":"Mulhern B, Norman R, Street DJ, Viney R. One Method, many methodological choices: A structured review of Discrete-Choice experiments for health state valuation. PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37:29\u201343.","journal-title":"PharmacoEconomics"},{"key":"2442_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"637","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-015-1115-3","volume":"25","author":"R Norman","year":"2016","unstructured":"Norman R, Viney R, Aaronson NK, Brazier JE, Cella D, Costa DS, Fayers PM, Kemmler G, Peacock S, Pickard AS, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:637\u201349.","journal-title":"Qual Life Res"},{"key":"2442_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1033","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2016.07.003","volume":"19","author":"R Norman","year":"2016","unstructured":"Norman R, Kemmler G, Viney R, Pickard AS, Gamper E, Holzner B, Nerich V, King M. Order of presentation of dimensions does not systematically bias utility weights from a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2016;19:1033\u20138.","journal-title":"Value Health"},{"key":"2442_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"306","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jhealeco.2011.11.004","volume":"31","author":"N Bansback","year":"2012","unstructured":"Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012;31:306\u201318.","journal-title":"J Health Econ"},{"key":"2442_CR33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"287","DOI":"10.1007\/s40258-013-0035-z","volume":"11","author":"R Norman","year":"2013","unstructured":"Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health States. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11:287\u201398.","journal-title":"Appl Health Econ Health Policy"},{"key":"2442_CR34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"773","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X13503499","volume":"34","author":"R Norman","year":"2014","unstructured":"Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, Burgess L, Cronin P, King M, Ratcliffe J, Street D. Valuing SF-6D health States using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34:773\u201386.","journal-title":"Med Decis Mak"},{"key":"2442_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"729","DOI":"10.1002\/hec.2953","volume":"23","author":"R Viney","year":"2014","unstructured":"Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, Cronin P, King MT, Ratcliffe J, Street D. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value eq-5d health States. Health Econ. 2014;23:729\u201342.","journal-title":"Health Econ"},{"key":"2442_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"21","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X9701700103","volume":"17","author":"H Bleichrodt","year":"1997","unstructured":"Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. The validity of qalys: an experimental test of constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence. Med Decis Mak. 1997;17:21\u201332.","journal-title":"Med Decis Mak"},{"key":"2442_CR37","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"827","DOI":"10.1002\/hec.1197","volume":"16","author":"AR Hole","year":"2007","unstructured":"Hole AR. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ. 2007;16:827\u201340.","journal-title":"Health Econ"},{"key":"2442_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"271","DOI":"10.1016\/S0167-6296(01)00130-8","volume":"21","author":"J Brazier","year":"2002","unstructured":"Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The Estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271\u201392.","journal-title":"J Health Econ"},{"key":"2442_CR39","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"753","DOI":"10.1586\/14737167.2013.850420","volume":"13","author":"H McTaggart-Cowan","year":"2013","unstructured":"McTaggart-Cowan H, Teckle P, Peacock S. Mapping utilities from cancer-specific health-related quality of life instruments: a review of the literature. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13:753\u201365.","journal-title":"Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res"},{"key":"2442_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"66","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X07309642","volume":"28","author":"D Mortimer","year":"2008","unstructured":"Mortimer D, Segal L. Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28:66\u201389.","journal-title":"Med Decis Mak"},{"key":"2442_CR41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"958","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2017.11.012","volume":"21","author":"EM Gamper","year":"2018","unstructured":"Gamper EM, Holzner B, King MT, Norman R, Viney R, Nerich V, Kemmler G. Test-Retest reliability of discrete choice experiment for valuations of QLU-C10D health States. Value Health. 2018;21:958\u201366.","journal-title":"Value Health"},{"key":"2442_CR42","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1191","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-021-03012-y","volume":"31","author":"MN Kaur","year":"2022","unstructured":"Kaur MN, Skolasky RL, Powell PA, Xie F, Huang IC, Kuspinar A, O\u2019Dwyer JL, Cizik AM, Rowen D. Transforming challenges into opportunities: conducting health preference research during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Qual Life Res. 2022;31:1191\u20138.","journal-title":"Qual Life Res"},{"key":"2442_CR43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2547","DOI":"10.1002\/hec.4399","volume":"30","author":"EJD Webb","year":"2021","unstructured":"Webb EJD, Kind P, Meads D, Martin A. Does a health crisis change how we value health? Health Econ. 2021;30:2547\u201360.","journal-title":"Health Econ"},{"key":"2442_CR44","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"983","DOI":"10.1007\/s10198-020-01189-6","volume":"21","author":"M Bahrampour","year":"2020","unstructured":"Bahrampour M, Byrnes J, Norman R, Scuffham PA, Downes M. Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21:983\u201392.","journal-title":"Eur J Health Econ"},{"key":"2442_CR45","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"405","DOI":"10.1007\/s40258-023-00794-9","volume":"21","author":"H Wang","year":"2023","unstructured":"Wang H, Rowen DL, Brazier JE, Jiang L. Discrete choice experiments in health state valuation: A systematic review of progress and new trends. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2023;21:405\u201318.","journal-title":"Appl Health Econ Health Policy"}],"container-title":["Health and Quality of Life Outcomes"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12955-025-02442-3.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s12955-025-02442-3","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12955-025-02442-3.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,16]],"date-time":"2026-06-16T12:23:40Z","timestamp":1781612620000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1186\/s12955-025-02442-3"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,29]]},"references-count":45,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,12]]}},"alternative-id":["2442"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12955-025-02442-3","relation":{"has-preprint":[{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.21203\/rs.3.rs-5909634\/v1","asserted-by":"object"}]},"ISSN":["1477-7525"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1477-7525","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,29]]},"assertion":[{"value":"27 January 2025","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"6 October 2025","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"29 October 2025","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The ethics committee of the National Institute of Public Health, to which the first author belongs (NIPH-IBRA #12272) approved. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethics approval and consent to participate"}},{"value":"Participants signed informed consent regarding publishing their anonymous data.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Consent for publication"}},{"value":"The authors declare no competing interests.","order":4,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Competing interests"}}],"article-number":"109"}}