For a study, researchers sought to collect data on the qualities and factors linked to preference heterogeneity in conjoint analysis for primary care outpatient visits, categorize them, and evaluate their strength of evidence. Starting on January 1, 2000, and continuing through December 15, 2021, they manually searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Econlit, and Scopus. Primary care outpatient visits were included in the conjoint analysis. Using the checklist developed by the ISPOR Task Force for Conjoint Analysis, 2 reviewers independently determined which papers to include and rated the quality of each study that was included. The Primary Care Monitoring System was used as a framework, and the elements from Andersen’s Behavioral Model of Health Services Use were used to classify primary care characteristics. Investigators then evaluated the quality of the studies, the consistency of the results, the direction of preference for primary care qualities, and the factors impacting preference heterogeneity. Most of the 35 research (82.4% of the total) were conducted in nations with high per capita income. Approximately 1 quarter of the studies (n=25) looked at between 3 and 8 characteristics. Only 6 visits were analyzed for chronic diseases, while the others were for either acute or other conditions. Compared to structure and results, process attributes were more frequently analyzed. Wait times, out-of-pocket expenses, and patient autonomy in selecting a provider were the top 3 characteristics studied. They found that 24 out of 58 characteristics (such as wait times and out-of-pocket expenses) were significantly associated with patients seeking primary care, and 4 out of 43 parameters significantly impacted individuals’ preferences (e.g., age, gender). The search yielded 35 conjoint studies that looked at 58 primary care characteristics and 43 variables that could influence patient choices. In order to enhance patients’ adoption of primary care, investigators and policymakers can use the features and factors, which have been divided into evidence levels based on study quality and consistency. In order to ensure that respondents have a common understanding of the different types of visits and that treatments are tailored to them, they suggested that future conjoint studies more precisely describe the qualities of these visits.