Background Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health state valuation studies. Objective This systematic review updates the progress and new findings of DCE studies in the health state valuation, covering the period since the review of June 2018 to November 2022. The review reports the methods that are currently being used in DCE studies to value health and study design characteristics, and, for the first time, reviews DCE health state valuation studies published in the Chinese language. Methods English language databases PubMed and Cochrane, and Chinese language databases Wanfang and CNKI were searched using the self-developed search terms. Health state valuation or methodology study papers were included if the study used DCE data to generate a value set for a preference-based measure. Key information extracted included DCE study design strategies applied, methods for anchoring the latent coefficient on to a 0-1 QALY scale and data analysis methods. Results Sixty-five studies were included; one Chinese language publication and 64 English language publications. The number of health state valuation studies using DCE has rapidly increased in recent years and these have been conducted in more countries than prior to 2018. Wide usage of DCE with duration attributes, D-efficient design and models accounting for heterogeneity has continued in recent years. Although more methodological consensus has been found than in studies conducted prior to 2018, this consensus may be driven by valuation studies for common measures with an international protocol (the 'model' valuation research). Valuing long measures with well-being attributes attracted attention and more realistic design strategies (e.g., inconstant time preference, efficient design and implausible states design) were identified. However, more qualitative and quantitative methodology study is still necessary to evaluate the effect of those new methods. Conclusions The use of DCEs in health state valuation continues to grow dramatically and the methodology progress makes the method more reliable and pragmatic. However, study design is driven by international protocols and method selection is not always justified. There is no gold standard for DCE design, presentation format or anchoring method. More qualitative and quantitative methodology study is recommended to evaluate the effect of new methods before researchers make methodology decisions.

Background:In light of the limited availability of healthcare resources, providing universal access to healthcare is a challenging task. As a result, prioritizing healthcare services has emerged as a crucial issue. This study aims to explore the preferences of the public regarding healthcare prioritization for rare and common diseases. By examining public attitudes, this study seeks to inform government decisions concerning resource allocation and distribution within healthcare. Methods: "Social preference" and "rare disease" were searched as MeSH terms in the electronic databases of Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Econlit for articles published since their establishment, and the information on the characteristics of the articles and the results of social preferences for rare diseases were analyzed and summarized. Results: The public held predominantly neutral views on the setting of healthcare priorities for rare and common diseases. The results of the included studies showed that with all else being equal, no social preference for rarity was found, but when the public considered the proportional advantage of rare diseases or when the respondents were young, a social preference for rarity existed. In addition, the public weighed attributes such as the health benefits of treatments, the effectiveness of treatment options, the safety of treatment, equity, unmet needs, and disease severity in the process of setting of treatment priorities for rare diseases. Furthermore, in consideration of equity, the public showed a willingness to pay for rare diseases in spite of the high medical costs. Conclusion: International studies on social preferences provide some evidence for the setting of healthcare priorities for rare diseases, and health policymakers should consider social preferences in an integrated manner in order to set healthcare priorities appropriately.