Table 2 Feasibility assessment includes competition rankings, reported difficulty of each preference elicitation method
n = 144 | Visual analogue scale n (%) | Time trade-off n (%) | Standard gamble n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
Participants who completed all rankings | 144 (100) | 109 (76) | 139 (97) |
Difficulty of method | |||
Very easy | 118 (82) | 95 (66) | 110 (76) |
Not too easy / Not too difficult | 25 (17) | 31 (22) | 30 (21) |
Very difficult | 1 (1) | 6 (4) | 3 (2) |
Missing | 0 (0) | 12 (8) | 1 (1) |
Needed help completing the method | |||
Yes | 24 (17) | 23 (16) | 23 (16) |
No | 119 (83) | 109 (76) | 120 (83) |
Missing | 1 (1) | 12 (8) | 1 (1) |
Who provided help | |||
Parent | 13 (54) | 9 (39) | 7 (30) |
Sibling | 1 (4) | 5 (22) | 5 (22) |
Friend | 8 (33) | 7 (30) | 8 (35) |
Other | 1 (4) | 2 (9) | 3 (13) |
Missing | 1 (4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |