Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen

Nachfolgend finden Sie einen Auszug an wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten, bei denen wirr maßgeblich mitgewirkt haben oder die Patienten Community einbezogen wurde.


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. 20201. 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


Su, J., Li, N., Joshi, N., et al. 2020. Patient and caregiver preferences for haemophilia 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.


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


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 St, Street DJ, 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.


King, MT 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. 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. 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 NK, Brazier JE, Cella DF, Costa DSJ, Fayers PM, Kemmler G, Peacock S, Pickard AS, Rowen D, Street D, Velikova G, Young TA, King MT. 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 AR, 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.


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.


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.


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.