Top

Quality of Life Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-04-2022

Time trade-off with someone to live for: impact of having significant others on time trade-off valuations of hypothetical health states

Authors: Tonya Moen Hansen, Knut Stavem, Kim Rand

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 4/2022

Abstract

Background

The TTO task involves giving up life years, i.e. living a shorter life, to avoid an undesirable health state. Despite being a hypothetical task, some respondents take other life factors into account when completing the task. This study explored the effect of having children and/or a partner on TTO valuations of hypothetical EQ-5D-5L health states in a valuation study of the general population.

Methods

The study used TTO data collected in a Norwegian EQ-5D-5L valuation study in 2019–2020, by one-to-one pc-assisted interviews following the EQ-VT protocol. We used regression modelling to determine the effect of significant others (having children or a partner) on disutility per health state from the TTO valuations.

Results

430 respondents were included [mean age 43.8 (SD 15.9) years, 58% female, 48% with children, 68% with a partner, 25% with neither children nor partner]. Having children and/or a partner was associated with lowered willingness to trade life years translating to higher elicited health state utilities (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Having significant others, or the lack of having significant others, was associated with respondents’ valuation of hypothetical health states using TTO, more so than traditional sampling variables such as age and sex. Inadequate representativeness in terms of having significant others could bias health state preference values in valuation studies.

Available only for authorised users

Dolan, P., & Roberts, J. (2002). To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents? Social Science and Medicine, 54(6), 919–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00066-1CrossRefPubMed

van Nooten, F., Busschbach, J., van Agthoven, M., van Exel, J., & Brouwer, W. (2018). What should we know about the person behind a TTO? The European Journal of Health Economics, 19(9), 1207–1211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-0975-1CrossRefPubMed

Devlin, N. J., Tsuchiya, A., Buckingham, K., & Tilling, C. (2011). A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: Feasibility study of the “lead time” approach. Health Economics, 20(3), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1596CrossRefPubMed

Dolan, P. (2000). Effect of age on health state valuations. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 5(1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/135581960000500106CrossRef

Barry, L., Hobbins, A., Kelleher, D., Shah, K., Devlin, N., Goni, J. M. R., & O’Neill, C. (2018). Euthanasia, religiosity and the valuation of health states: Results from an Irish EQ5D5L valuation study and their implications for anchor values. Health Quality of Life Outcomes., 16(1), 152. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0985-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Golicki, D., Jakubczyk, M., Graczyk, K., & Niewada, M. (2019). Valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states in Poland: The first EQ-VT-based study in Central and Eastern Europe. PharmacoEconomics, 37(9), 1165–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00811-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research., 20(10), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Oppe, M., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Shah, K., Ramos-Goni, J. M., & Luo, N. (2016). EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. PharmacoEconomics, 34(10), 993–1004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Stolk, E., Ludwig, K., Rand, K., van Hout, B., & Ramos-Goñi, J. M. (2019). Overview, update, and lessons learned from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health., 22(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.010CrossRefPubMed

10.

Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., Guan, H., Jin, X., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2017). Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value Health, 20(4), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016CrossRefPubMed

11.

Ramos-Goni, J. M., Craig, B. M., Oppe, M., Ramallo-Farina, Y., Pinto-Prades, J. L., Luo, N., & Rivero-Arias, O. (2018). Handling data quality issues to estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set using a hybrid interval regression approach. Value Health, 21(5), 596–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.023CrossRefPubMed

12.

Pattanaphesaj, J., Thavorncharoensap, M., Ramos-Goni, J. M., Tongsiri, S., Ingsrisawang, L., & Teerawattananon, Y. (2018). The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 18(5), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2018.1494574CrossRef

13.

Purba, F. D., Hunfeld, J. A., Iskandarsyah, A., Fitriana, T. S., Sadarjoen, S. S., Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Passchier, J., & Busschbach, J. J. (2017). The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L value set. PharmacoEconomics, 35(11), 1153–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0538-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Eibach, R. P., & Mock, S. E. (2011). The vigilant parent: Parental role salience affects parents’ risk perceptions, risk-aversion, and trust in strangers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 694–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.009CrossRef

15.

Görlitz, K., & Tamm, M. (2020). Parenthood, risk attitudes and risky behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 79, 102189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.102189CrossRef

16.

Matza, L. S., Boye, K. S., Feeny, D. H., Johnston, J. A., Bowman, L., & Jordan, J. B. (2014). Impact of caregiver and parenting status on time trade-off and standard gamble utility scores for health state descriptions. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-48CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

van Nooten, F. E., van Exel, N. J., Koolman, X., & Brouwer, W. B. (2015). “Married with children” the influence of significant others in TTO exercises. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 94. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0276-7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Schwartz, A., Hazen, G., Leifer, A., & Heckerling, P. (2008). Life goals and health decisions: What will people live (or die) for? Medical Decision Making, 28(2), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x07311749CrossRefPubMed

19.

Krol, M., Attema, A. E., van Exel, J., & Brouwer, W. (2016). Altruistic preferences in time tradeoff: Consideration of effects on others in health state valuations. Medical Decision Making, 36(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x15615870CrossRefPubMed

20.

Norman, R., King, M. T., Clarke, D., Viney, R., Cronin, P., & Street, D. (2010). Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task. Quality of Life Research., 19(4), 499–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9609-5CrossRefPubMed

21.

Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Van Den Hout, W. B. (2014). Qualitative and quantitative analysis of interviewer help answering the time tradeoff. Medical Decision Making, 34(5), 655–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14524989CrossRefPubMed

22.

Hansen, T. M., Helland, Y., Augestad, L. A., Rand, K., Stavem, K., & Garratt, A. (2020). Elicitation of Norwegian EQ-5D-5L values for hypothetical and experience-based health states based on the EuroQol valuation technology (EQ-VT) protocol. British Medical Journal Open, 10(6), e034683. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034683CrossRef

23.

Ramos-Goni, J. M., Oppe, M., Slaap, B., Busschbach, J. J., & Stolk, E. (2017). Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health, 20(3), 466–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.012CrossRefPubMed

24.

Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health, 17(4), 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002CrossRefPubMed

25.

R Core Team, (2020) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, in R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

26.

van der Pol, M., & Shiell, A. (2007). Extrinsic goals and time tradeoff. Medical Decision Making, 27(4), 406–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x07302127CrossRefPubMed

27.

Cubi-Molla, P., Shah, K., Garside, J., Herdman, M., & Devlin, N. (2019). A note on the relationship between age and health-related quality of life assessment. Quality of Life Research, 28(5), 1201–1205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2071-5CrossRefPubMed

28.

Jakubczyk, M., Golicki, D., & Niewada, M. (2016). The impact of a belief in life after death on health-state preferences: True difference or artifact? Quality of Life Research, 25(12), 2997–3008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1356-9CrossRefPubMed

29.

Bleichrodt, H. (2002). A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Economics, 11(5), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.688CrossRefPubMed

30.

van Nooten, F., & Brouwer, W. (2004). The influence of subjective expectations about length and quality of life on time trade-off answers. Health Economics, 13(8), 819–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.873CrossRefPubMed

31.

Tømmerås, Ane Margrete (2021) Nok en gang rekordlav fruktbarhet. Retrieved July 26, 2021, from https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/nok-en-gang-rekordlav-fruktbarhet.

32.

NSD/SSB (2021) User Guide for microdata.no. 2021. Retrieved July 28, 2021, from https://microdata.no/en/.

33.

ONS (2021) Families and households in the UK: 2020. Retrieved July 28, 2021, from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2020.

34.

US Census Bureau (2021) America’s families and living arrangements: 2020. Retrieved July 28, 2021, from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/demo/families/cps-2020.html.

Title: Time trade-off with someone to live for: impact of having significant others on time trade-off valuations of hypothetical health states
Authors: Tonya Moen Hansen
Knut Stavem
Kim Rand
Publication date: 01-04-2022
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 4/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-03026-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Time trade-off with someone to live for: impact of having significant others on time trade-off valuations of hypothetical health states

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2022

Quality of life among women with symptomatic, screen-detected, and interval breast cancer, and for women without breast cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional study from Norway

Prevalence vs impact: a mixed methods study of survivorship issues in colorectal cancer

Physical distancing is related to fewer electronic and in-person contacts and to increased loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic among older Europeans

What conservative interventions can improve the long-term quality of life, depression, and anxiety of individuals with stable COPD? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Correction to: Exploration of a cultural-adaptation of the EQ-5D for Thai population: A “bolt-on” experiment

Are all domains of life satisfaction equal? Differential associations with health and well-being in older adults