Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics 1/2013

Open Access 01-07-2013 | Original Paper

Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods

Authors: Arthur E. Attema, Yvette Edelaar-Peeters, Matthijs M. Versteegh, Elly A. Stolk

Published in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Special Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

There is no scientific consensus on the optimal specification of the time trade-off (TTO) task. As a consequence, studies using TTO to value health states may share the core element of trading length of life for quality of life, but can differ considerably on many other elements. While this pluriformity in specifications advances the understanding of TTO from a methodological point of view, it also results in incomparable health state values. Health state values are applied in health technology assessments, and in that context comparability of information is desired. In this article, we discuss several alternative specifications of TTO presented in the literature. The defining elements of these specifications are identified as being either methodological, procedural or analytical in nature. Where possible, it is indicated how these elements affect health state values (i.e., upward or downward). Finally, a checklist for TTO studies is presented, which incorporates a list of choices to be made by researchers who wish to perform a TTO task. Such a checklist enables other researchers to align methodologies in order to enhance the comparability of health state values.
Footnotes
1
We will term this method “classical TTO” from now on.
 
2
The MVH WTD procedure has never been labeled and hence will just be termed ‘MVH WTD procedure’ in this article.
 
Literature
1.
Arnesen, T., Trommald, M.: Roughly right or precisely wrong? Systematic review of quality-of-life weights elicited with the time trade-off method. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 9, 43–50 (2004)PubMedCrossRef
2.
Arnesen, T., Trommald, M.: Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable?–A systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Econ. 14, 39–53 (2005)PubMedCrossRef
3.
Robinson, A., Spencer, A.: Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ. 15, 393–402 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
4.
Macran, S., Kind, P.: “Death” and the valuation of health-related quality of life. Med. Care 39, 217–227 (2001)PubMedCrossRef
5.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J.A., Tsuchiya, A.: Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press (2007)
6.
Bleichrodt, H., Pinto, J.L., Abellán-Perpinán, J.M.: A consistency test of the time trade-off. J. Health Econ. 22, 1037–1052 (2003)PubMedCrossRef
7.
Attema, A.E., Brouwer, W.B.F.: Can we fix it? Yes we can! But what? A new test of procedural invariance in TTO-measurement. Health Econ. 17, 877–885 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
8.
9.
10.
Stalmeier, P.F.M., Goldstein, M.K., Holmes, A.M., Lenert, L., Miyamoto, J., Stiggelbout, A.M., Torrance, G.W., Tsevat, J.: What should be reported in a methods section on utility assessment? Med. Decis. Making 21, 200–207 (2001)PubMed
11.
Attema, A.E., Brouwer, W.B.F.: On the (not so) constant proportional tradeoff in TTO. Qual. Life Res. 19, 489–497 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
12.
Tilling, C., Devlin, N., Tsuchiya, A., Buckingham, K.: Protocols for time trade off valuations of health states worse than dead: a literature review. Med. Decis. Making 30, 610–619 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
13.
Torrance, G.W.: Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J. Health Econ. 5, 1–30 (1986)PubMedCrossRef
14.
Devlin, N.J., Buckingham, K., Tsuchiya, A., Shah, K., Tilling, C., Wilkinson, G., van Hout, B.A.: A comparison of alternative variants of the lead and lag time TTO. Health Econ. 22, 517–532 (2013)PubMedCrossRef
15.
Devlin, N., Tsuchiya, A., Buckingham, K., Tilling, C.: A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach. Health Econ. 20, 348–361 (2011)PubMedCrossRef
16.
Attema, A.E., Versteegh, M.M., Oppe, M., Brouwer, W.B.F., Stolk, E.A.: Lead time TTO: leading to better health state valuations? Health Econ. 22, 376–392 (2013)PubMedCrossRef
17.
Attema, A.E., Brouwer, W.B.F.: Constantly proving the opposite? A test of CPTO using a broad horizon and correcting for discounting. Qual. Life Res. 21, 25–34 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
18.
Stiggelbout, A.M., Kiebert, G.M., Kievit, J., Leer, J.W., Habbema, J.D., De Haes, J.C.: The “utility” of the time trade-off method in cancer patients: feasibility and proportional trade-off. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 48, 1207–1214 (1995)PubMedCrossRef
19.
Essink-Bot, M.L., Stuifbergen, M.C., Meerding, W.J., Looman, C.W., Bonsel, G.J.: Individual differences in the use of the response scale determine valuations of hypothetical health states: an empirical study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 7, 62 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
20.
Heintz, E., Krol, M., Levin, L.A.: The impact of patients’ subjective life expectancy on time trade-off valuations. Med. Decis. Making 33, 261–270 (2013)PubMedCrossRef
21.
van Nooten, F.E., Koolman, X., Brouwer, W.B.F.: The influence of subjective life expectancy on health state valuations using a 10 year TTO. Health Econ. 18, 549–558 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
22.
Kattan, M.W., Fearn, P.A., Miles, B.J.: Time trade-off utility modified to accommodate degenerative and life-threatening conditions. In: Proceedings of AMIA. Annual symposium, 304–308 (2001)
23.
24.
Bostic, R., Herrnstein, R.J., Luce, R.D.: The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 13, 193–212 (1990)CrossRef
25.
Delquié, P.: “Bi-matching”: a new preference assessment method to reduce compatibility effects. Manage. Sci. 43, 640–658 (1997)CrossRef
26.
Lenert, L.A., Cher, D.J., Goldstein, M.K., Bergen, M.R., Garber, A.: The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med. Decis. Making 18, 76–83 (1998)PubMedCrossRef
27.
Samuelsen, C.H., Augestad, L.A., Stavem, K., Kristiansen, I.S.: Rand-Hendriksen. Anchoring bias in the lead-time time trade-off (2012)
28.
Stalmeier, P.F.M., Chapman, G.B., de Boer, A.G.E.M., van Lanschot, J.J.B.: A fallacy of the multiplicative QALY model for low-quality weights in students and patients judging hypothetical health states. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 17, 488–496 (2001)PubMedCrossRef
29.
Stalmeier, P.F., Bezembinder, T.G., Unic, I.J.: Proportional heuristics in time tradeoff and conjoint measurement. Med. Decis. Making 16, 36–44 (1996)PubMedCrossRef
30.
Unic, I., Stalmeier, P.F., Verhoef, L.C., van Daal, W.A.: Assessment of the time-tradeoff values for prophylactic mastectomy of women with a suspected genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Med. Decis. Making 18, 268–277 (1998)PubMedCrossRef
31.
Dolan, P., Stalmeier, P.F.M.: The validity of time trade-off values in calculating QALYs: constant proportional time trade-off versus the proportional heuristic. J. Health Econ. 22, 445–458 (2003)PubMedCrossRef
32.
Attema, A.E., Brouwer, W.B.F.: The way that you do it? An elaborate test of procedural invariance of TTO, using a choice-based design. Eur J Health Econ 13, 491–500 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
Krabbe, P.F., Bonsel, G.J.: Sequence effects, health profiles, and the QALY model: in search of realistic modeling. Med. Decis. Making 18, 178–186 (1998)PubMed
35.
Krabbe, P.F., Essink-Bot, M.L., Bonsel, G.J.: On the equivalence of collectively and individually collected responses: standard-gamble and time-tradeoff judgments of health states. Med. Decis. Making 16, 120–132 (1996)PubMedCrossRef
36.
Jansen, S.J., Stiggelbout, A.M., Wakker, P.P., Nooij, M.A., Noordijk, E.M., Kievit, J.: Unstable preferences: a shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Med. Decis. Making 20, 62–71 (2000)PubMedCrossRef
37.
Spencer, A.: The implications of linking questions within the SG and TTO methods. Health Econ. 13, 807–818 (2004)PubMedCrossRef
38.
Norman, R., King, M., Clarke, D., Viney, R., Cronin, P., Street, D.: Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task. Qual. Life Res. 19, 499–508 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
39.
Bowling, A.: Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J. Public Health 27, 281–291 (2005)CrossRef
40.
Hildum, D.C., Brown, R.W.: Verbal reinforcement and interviewer bias. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 53, 108–111 (1956)CrossRef
41.
Versteegh, M.M., Attema, A.E., Oppe, M., Devlin, N.J., Stolk, E.A.: Time to tweak the TTO: results from a comparison of alternative specifications of the TTO. Eur. J. Health Econ. (Forthcoming)
42.
Bansback, N., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., Anis, A.: Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS One 7, e31115 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
43.
Stolk, E.A., Busschbach, J.J.: Validity and feasibility of the use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic evaluation. Qual. Life Res. 12, 363–371 (2003)PubMedCrossRef
44.
Versteegh, M.M., Leunis, A., Uyl-de Groot, C.A., Stolk, E.A.: Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden? Value Health 15, 504–513 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
45.
Zikmund-Fisher, B.J., Fagerlin, A., Ubel, P.A.: A demonstration of ‘‘less can be more’’ in risk graphics. Med. Decis. Making 30, 661–671 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
46.
Zikmund-Fisher, B.J., Ubel, P.A., Smith, D.M., Derry, H.A., McClure, J.B., Stark, A., Pitsch, R.K., Fagerlin, A.: Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ. Couns. 73, 209–214 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
47.
Swinburn, P.: EQ-5D orientation study report produced for the EuroQol Group (2010)
48.
Augestad, L.A., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Kristiansen, I.S., Stavem, K.: Learning effects in time trade-off based valuation of EQ-5D health states. Value Health 15, 340–345 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
49.
Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., Williams, A.: The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 5, 141–154 (1996)PubMedCrossRef
50.
Furlong, W., Feeny, D., Torrance, G., Barr, R., Horsman, J.: Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. (1992)
51.
Pinto-Prades, J.L.: Imprecise preferences and order effects in the time trade-off. (2013)
52.
Gold, M.R., Siegel, J.E., Russell, L.B., Weinstein, M.C. (eds.): Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press, New York (1996)
53.
Riteco, J.A., de Heij, L.J.M., van Luijn, J.C.F., Wolff, I.F.: Richtlijnen voor Farmaco-Economisch Onderzoek. College voor Zorgverzekeringen, Amstelveen (1999)
54.
Dolan, P., Kahneman, D.: Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ. J. 118, 215–234 (2008)CrossRef
55.
Menzel, P., Dolan, P., Richardson, J., Olsen, J.A.: The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 55, 2149–2158 (2002)PubMedCrossRef
56.
Lamers, L.M., McDonnell, J., Stalmeier, P.F.M., Krabbe, P.F.M., Busschbach, J.J.V.: The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 15, 1121–1132 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
57.
Viney, R., Norman, R., King, M., Cronin, P., Street, D.J., Knox, S., Ratcliffe, J.: Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value Health 14, 928–936 (2011)PubMedCrossRef
58.
Bagust, A.: Improving valuation sampling of EQ-5D health states. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 11, 14 (2013)PubMedCrossRef
59.
Brazier, J., Rowen, D.: NICE DSU technical support document 11: alternatives to EQ-5D for generating health state utility values (2011)
60.
Gerard, K., Dobson, M., Hall, J.: Framing and labelling effects in health descriptions: quality adjusted life years for treatment of breast cancer. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 46, 77–84 (1993)PubMedCrossRef
61.
Peeters, Y., Stiggelbout, A.M.: Valuing health: does enriching a scenario lead to higher utilities? Med. Decis. Making 29, 334–342 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
62.
Peeters, Y., Vliet Vlieland, T.P.M., Stiggelbout, A.M.: Focusing illusion, adaptation and EQ-5D health state descriptions: the difference between patients and public. Health Expect. 15, 367–378 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
63.
Insinga, R.P., Fryback, D.G.: Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL. Qual. Life Res. 12, 611–619 (2003)PubMedCrossRef
64.
Pyne, J.M., Fortney, J.C., Tripathi, S., Feeny, D., Ubel, P., Brazier, J.: How bad is depression? Preference score estimates from depressed patients and the general population. Health Serv. Res. 44, 1406–1423 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
65.
Smith, D., Damschroder, L., Kim, S., Ubel, P.: What’s it worth? Public willingness to pay to avoid mental illnesses compared with general medical illnesses. Psychiatr. Serv. 63, 319–324 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
66.
Schiffman, R.M., Walt, J.G., Jacobsen, G., Doyle, J.J., Lebovics, G., Sumner, W.: Utility assessment among patients with dry eye disease. Ophthalmology 110, 1412–1419 (2003)PubMedCrossRef
67.
Handler, R.M., Hynes, L.M., Nease Jr, R.F.: Effect of locus of control and consideration of future consequences on time tradeoff utilities for current health. Qual. Life Res. 6, 54–60 (1997)PubMedCrossRef
68.
Churchill, D.N., Torrance, G.W., Taylor, D.W., Barnes, C.C., Ludwin, D., Shimizu, A., Smith, E.K.: Measurement of quality of life in end-stage renal disease: the time trade-off approach. Clin. Invest. Med. 10, 14–20 (1987)PubMed
69.
Churchill, D.N., Morgan, J., Torrance, G.W.: Quality of life in end-stage renal disease. Perit. Dial. Bull. 4, 20–23 (1984)
70.
Arnesen, T.M., Norheim, O.F.: Quantifying quality of life for economic analysis: time out for time tradeoff. Medical Humanit. 29, 81–86 (2003)CrossRef
71.
Iezzi, A., Richardson, J.: Measuring Quality of Life at the Centre for Health Economics. Melbourne. (2009)
72.
Fryback, D.G., Lawrence, W.F.: Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: a problem with defining quality-of-life adjustments. Med. Decis. Making 17, 276–284 (1997)PubMedCrossRef
73.
King Jr, J.T., Styn, M.A., Tsevat, J., Roberts, M.S.: “Perfect health” versus “disease free”: the impact of anchor point choice on the measurement of preferences and the calculation of disease-specific disutilities. Med. Decis. Making 23, 212–225 (2003)PubMedCrossRef
74.
King, J.T., Tsevat, J., Roberts, M.S.: Impact of the scale upper anchor on health state preferences. Med. Decis. Making 29, 257–266 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
75.
Lamers, L.M.: The transformation of utilities for health states worse than death: consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value sets. Med. Care 45, 238–244 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
76.
Patrick, D.L., Starks, H.E., Cain, K.C., Uhlmann, R.F., Pearlman, R.A.: Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med. Decis. Making 14, 9–18 (1994)PubMedCrossRef
77.
Craig, B.M., Oppe, M.: From a different angle: a novel approach to health valuation. Soc. Sci. Med. 70, 169–174 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
78.
Craig, B.M., Busschbach, J.: The episodic random utility model unifies time trade-off and discrete choice approaches in health state valuation. Popul. Health Metr. 7, 3 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
79.
Attema, A.E., Brouwer, W.B.F.: The value of correcting values: influence and importance of correcting TTO scores for time preference. Value Health 13, 879–884 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
80.
Attema, A.E., Brouwer, W.B.F.: The correction of TTO-scores for utility curvature using a risk-free utility elicitation method. J. Health Econ. 28, 234–243 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
81.
82.
Stiggelbout, A.M., Kiebert, G.M., Kievit, J., Leer, J.W., Stoter, G., de Haes, J.C.: Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med. Decis. Making 14, 82–90 (1994)PubMedCrossRef
83.
Martin, A.J., Glasziou, P.P., Simes, R.J., Lumley, T.: A comparison of standard gamble, time trade-off, and adjusted time trade-off scores. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 16, 137–147 (2000)PubMedCrossRef
84.
van der Pol, M., Roux, L.: Time preference bias in time trade-off. Eur. J. Health Econ. 6, 107–111 (2005)PubMedCrossRef
85.
van Osch, S.M., Wakker, P.P., van den Hout, W.B., Stiggelbout, A.M.: Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities. Med. Decis. Making 24, 511–517 (2004)PubMedCrossRef
86.
Olsen, J.A.: Persons versus years: two ways of eliciting implicit weights. Health Econ. 3, 39–46 (1994)PubMedCrossRef
87.
Gyrd-Hansen, D.: Comparing the results of applying different methods of eliciting time preferences for health. Eur. J. Health Econ. 3, 10–16 (2002)PubMedCrossRef
88.
Bleichrodt, H., Johannesson, M.: Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J. Health Econ. 16, 155–175 (1997)PubMedCrossRef
89.
90.
Bansback, N., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., Anis, A.: Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J. Health Econ. 31, 306–318 (2012)PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods
Authors
Arthur E. Attema
Yvette Edelaar-Peeters
Matthijs M. Versteegh
Elly A. Stolk
Publication date
01-07-2013
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Issue Special Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Electronic ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0508-x

Other articles of this Special Issue 1/2013

The European Journal of Health Economics 1/2013 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: does it make any difference?

Original Paper

One-to-one versus group setting for conducting computer-assisted TTO studies: findings from pilot studies in England and the Netherlands

Original Paper

Time to tweak the TTO: results from a comparison of alternative specifications of the TTO

Original Paper

Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states

Editorial

The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L

Original Paper

Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity