Benefit valuation for a Cost-Benefit Analysis in the context of developing nations

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Investigating users' preferences for Low Emission Buses : Experiences from Europe's largest hydrogen bus fleet

The Health Economics Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientists Office (CSO) of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate. The views expressed paper in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the CSO. Data collection for this study was funded by the Henderson Economics Research Fund. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, or preparation of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPostprin

Understanding Persistent Pain (UPP) : a Decision Aid Tool to inform management of persistent pain in pharmacy

Peer reviewedPostprin

UK general population’s Willingness To Pay for dental check-ups

Funding statement The project was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (project number: 06/35/99). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health or the funders that provide institutional support for the authors of this report. The Health Economics Research Unit at the University of Aberdeen are funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge and thank all of the respondents to our survey who took the time to share their opinions and preferences with us. We are grateful to all members of the INTERVAL study team who provided input, advice, and comments on draft versions of the surveyPeer reviewe

Using a discrete choice experiment to develop a decision aid tool to inform the management of persistent pain in pharmacy : – a protocol for a randomised feasibility study

Acknowledgments The authors thank participants from previous stages that helped design the decision aid tool and study procedures for this feasibility study. They also thank Amanda Cardy and the NHS Research Scotland Primary Care (NRS Primary Care) network for their help recruiting healthcare professionals and patients in this and previous stages of the project, and members of the Patient Advisory Group whose input throughout has helped guide the study. The authors thanks internal reviewers whose comments helped improve this Protocol. The authors also thank Dr Gin Nie Chua for her work in the grant awarding and literature review process. Funding This work was funded by Pharmacy Research UK (Grant PRUK-2016-PG57-1). Additional funding has been granted by the University of Aberdeen. The Health Economics Research Unit is supported by the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate. The funders had no input to the study design, collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data and will have no input to the writing of the report or decision to submit for publication.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Public Preferences and Willingness to Pay for a Net Zero NHS : a protocol for a discrete choice experiment in England and Scotland

We thank colleagues for their comments on the study design and questionnaire. We thank all members of the public who took part in the think aloud interviews. We also thank Dr Dwayne Boyers and Professor Jennie Macdiarmid for their review of the protocol and whose comments and suggestions were taken on board and incorporated in this manuscript. We want to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggested edits during the submission process.Peer reviewe

Trade-offs between overall survival and side-effects in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer : eliciting preferences of patients with primary and metastatic breast cancer using a discrete choice experiment

Acknowledgements We thank all the patients and volunteers who agreed to participate in this study and the study contributors.Peer reviewe

Understanding public preferences and trade-offs for government responses during a pandemic : a protocol for a discrete choice experiment in the UK

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Public contributors' preferences for the organisation of remote public involvement meetings in health and social care : a discrete choice experiment study

Funding information NIHR ARC North West CoastPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Public acceptability of non-pharmaceutical interventions to control a pandemic in the United Kingdom : a discrete choice experiment

Acknowledgements We want to thank the members of the public who took part in the think aloud interviews as part of the study development stage. We thank the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group for their continued involvement in the research study. We also thank Dr Dwayne Boyers for his internal review of the study protocol and Professor Vikki Entwistle for comments on the protocol. Funding This study was funded by the Health Economics Research Unit, the University of Aberdeen, and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. Award/Grant number is not applicable. The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit the article for publication.Peer reviewedPublisher PD