OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations (EE) are ubiquitous and growing in importance with increasing demand for healthcare services. However, healthcare decision makers often do not use this evidence when making decisions. Previous research has shown several factors influence the use of EE, such as credibility, complexity, and timeliness. However, no research has examined the relative importance of these factors in making EE more valuable as a service. This research shows what factors are most important to healthcare professionals/ administrators/researchers, when examining research using EE. METHODS: Study 1, an online questionnaire of Australian infection control practitioners (N=35), sought ratings of the absolute and relative importance of a range of barriers and facilitators of using EE in healthcare decision making. Seven factors (rigour of the cost effectiveness analysis, quality of the clinical evidence, timeliness, communication, applicability, conflicts of interest, equity) were selected from this study to inform Study 2. Study 2 used a discrete choice experiment (blocked, orthogonal design) to examine the relative importance of these seven factors in the choice between two health economists which differ in these attributes. This was administered online to a range of Australian healthcare decision makers.  RESULTS: Study 1 showed that quality of clinical evidence was the most important factor when examining EE, followed by applicability, communication, and the rigour of the cost effectiveness analysis. Conflict of interest was the least important factor. Study 2 will demonstrate the trade-offs between these factors. The results for this second study will be ready in March. CONCLUSIONS: This research shows which factors are most valuable for healthcare decision makers using EE. To our knowledge this is the first study to use a preference analytic technique to measure what is valuable in a decision tool. The findings from this research will provide guidance on how to better deliver EE to end users.