Review Gold Open Access 2026

Preferences of health professions learners: a scoping review of the use and role of DCEs in health professions education

Medical Education Online
Journal · Vol. 31 · Issue 1 · Art. 2614235
Abstract

While discrete choice experiments (DCE), have increasingly been used in the medical literature, little is known about the use of these methods for eliciting preferences from and about students and trainees in health professions. The objectives of this scoping review are to (1) describe the extent to which DCEs have been used in health professions’ education, (2) identify which health professionals have been studied, and (3) identify thematic areas of research in which these methods have been used thematic areas. Between June and September 2024, we conducted a scoping review of the PubMed/Medline, EconLit, Web of Science, and Global Index Medicus databases to identify articles. Studies were eligible for inclusion in this review if they included a health profession training population and if conjoint analysis, DCE, or best-worst scaling studies were used. Forty-nine articles, comprising 60 studies and 21,731 health profession trainees, were included in this review. Medical and nursing students constitute the majority of the population studied. The greatest number of studies have been conducted in China (n = 11) and the United States (n = 8). The two most popular thematic areas in which these studies have been used are to identify preferences for policies and incentives to take a job in a rural area and residency training preferences for medical students. There has been a gradual increase in the use of these methods in the health profession education literature. The extent to which findings have been used for curriculum or policy design is not clear. DCEs are increasingly used to study health profession students and other trainees. More research is needed to explore the validity of preferences and whether preferences correlate with student outcomes or observed behavior. © 2026 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Keywords

Author Keywords

Economics, medical education, medical education, pharmacy education, professional nursing education research stated preferences

Index Keywords

China human psychology Humans curriculum education Career choice United States diagnosis medical education review nursing student rural area validity Systematic Review Decision making Vocational education scoping review health economics health practitioner medical profession medical student nursing education pharmacy education residency education Web of Science health care personnel Choice Behavior Health Occupations Health Personnel Students, Medical
Author Affiliations
Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, United States
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States
Department of Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, United States
Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, United States, Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, United States
Funding & Acknowledgements
National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, NIMHD
Grant: R21MD01927
The study team declares no relevant conflicts of interest. Drs. Gillette and Ostermann, Ms. O'Neal, and Mr. Steele were supported by a grant from the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (R21MD01927). The authors wish to thank Dr. Nilzimar Vieira Hauskrecht for her translation services. The authors also wish to thank Ms. Quazi Minhaz Tabussum for her editing assistance.
National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, NIMHD
The study team declares no relevant conflicts of interest. Drs. Gillette and Ostermann, Ms. O'Neal, and Mr. Steele were supported by a grant from the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (R21MD01927). The authors wish to thank Dr. Nilzimar Vieira Hauskrecht for her translation services. The authors also wish to thank Ms. Quazi Minhaz Tabussum for her editing assistance.
References 10 References
1 Soekhai, Vikas R., Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future, PharmacoEconomics, 37, 2, pp. 201-226, (2019)
2 Soekhai, Vikas R., Methods for exploring and eliciting patient preferences in the medical product lifecycle: a literature review, Drug Discovery Today, 24, 7, pp. 1324-1331, (2019)
3 Zhang, Ying, Prediction accuracy of discrete choice experiments in health-related research: a systematic review and meta-analysis, eClinicalMedicine, 79, (2025)
4 Louviere, Jordan J., Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis, Journal of Choice Modelling, 3, 3, pp. 57-72, (2010)
5 Honda, Ayako, For more than money: Willingness of health professionals to stay in remote Senegal, Human Resources for Health, 17, 1, (2019)
6 Green, Ariel Frank, Assessment of Patient-Preferred Language to Achieve Goal-Aligned Deprescribing in Older Adults, JAMA Network Open, 4, 4, (2021)
7 Soekhai, Vikas R., Comparing Outcomes of a Discrete Choice Experiment and Case 2 Best-Worst Scaling: An Application to Neuromuscular Disease Treatment, Patient, 16, 3, pp. 239-253, (2023)
8 Mangham-Jefferies, Lindsay J., How to do (or not to do)...Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country, Health Policy and Planning, 24, 2, pp. 151-158, (2009)
9 Gillette, Chris M., A discrete choice experiment with health professions trainees to improve the urban-rural health care access disparity in Appalachia: Study protocol, PLoS ONE, 20, 1, (2025)
10 Cleland, Jennifer A., What can discrete choice experiments do for you?, Medical Education, 52, 11, pp. 1113-1124, (2018)
Quick Actions
Full Text via DOI
Citation Metrics
0
Times Cited (Scopus)

References 10
Document Identifiers