Wang Z, Zellers S, Whipp AM, Heinonen-Guzejev M, Foraster M, Julvez J, van Kamp I, Kaprio J. The effect of environment on depressive symptoms in late adolescence and early adulthood: an exposome-wide association study and twin modeling. Nat Mental Health. 2023 Sep 25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-023-00124-x
de Sousa Maciel I, Piironen AK, Afonin AM, Ivanova M, Alatalo A, Jadhav KK, Julvez J, Foraster M, van Kamp I, Kanninen KM. Plasma proteomics discovery of mental health risk biomarkers in adolescents. Nat Mental Health. 2023 Aug;1:596-605. doi: 10.1038/s44220-023-00103-2
Mansfield C, Sutphin J, Boeri M. Assessing the impact of excluded attributes on choice in a discrete choice experiment using a follow-up question. Health Econ. 2020 Oct;29(10):1307-15. doi: 10.1002/hec.4124
Doward L, Svedsater H, Whalley D, Crawford R, Leather D, Lay-Flurrie J, Bosanquet N. A descriptive follow-up interview study assessing patient-centred outcomes: Salford Lung Study in Asthma (SLS Asthma). NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2019 Aug 15;29(1):31. doi: 10.1038/s41533-019-0142-x.
Whalley D, Svedsater H, Doward L, Crawford R, Leather D, Lay-Flurrie J, Bosanquet N. Follow-up interviews from The Salford Lung Study (COPD) and analyses per treatment and exacerbations. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2019 May 9;29(1):20. doi: 10.1038/s41533-019-0123-0
Heidenreich S, Watson V, Ryan M, Phimister E. Decision heuristic or preference? Attribute non-attendance in discrete choice problems. Health Econ. 2018 Jan;27(1):157-71. doi: 10.1002/hec.3524
Doward L, Svedsater H, Whalley D, Crawford R, Leather D, Lay-Flurrie J, Bosanquet N. Salford Lung Study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (SLS COPD): follow-up interviews on patient-centred outcomes. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 2017 Dec 15;27(1):66. doi: 10.1038/s41533-017-0066-2
Tsuchiya A, Watson V. Re-thinking “the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health". Health Econ. 2017 Dec;26(12):e103-7. doi: 10.1002/hec.3480
Krucien N, Watson V, Ryan M. Is best-worst scaling suitable for health state valuation? A comparison with discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2017 Dec;26(12):e1-e16. doi: 10.1002/hec.3459
Watson V, Becker F, de Bekker-Grob E. Discrete choice experiment response rates: a meta-analysis. Health Econ. 2017 Jun;26(6):810-7. doi: 10.1002/hec.3354
Ibañez A, Aguado J, Baez S, Huepe D, Lopez V, Ortega R, Sigman M, Mikulan E, Lischinsky L, Torrente F, Cetkovich M, Torralva T, Bekinschtein T, Manes F. From neural signatures of emotional modulation to social cognition: individual differences in healthy volunteers and psychiatric participants. Soc Cogn Affect Neur. 2014 Jul;9(7):939-50.
Zarkin GA, Cowell AJ, Hicks KA, Mills MJ, Belenko S, Dunlap LJ, Houser KA, Keyes V. Benefits and costs of substance abuse treatment programs for state prison inmates: results from a lifetime simulation model. Health Econ. 2012 Jun;21(6):633-52.
Ryan M, Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2009 Apr;18(4):389-401. doi: 10.1002/hec.1364
Ryan M, Watson V, Entwistle V. Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Health Econ. 2009 Mar;18(3):321-36. doi: 10.1002/hec.1369
Scotland GS, Philip S, Fleming AD, Goatman KA, Sharp PF, McNamee P, Fonseca S, Prescott G, Olson JA. Manual versus automated: the diabetic retinopathy screening debate. OTE. 2008 Jan 1;4(2):14-6.
Zarkin GA, Dunlap LJ, Hicks KA, Mamo D. Benefits and costs of methadone treatment: results from a lifetime simulation model. Health Econ. 2005 Nov 1;14(11):1133-50.