Top

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Published in:

01-06-2013 | Original Research Article

A Pilot Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Preferences for EQ-5D-5L Health States

Authors: Richard Norman, Paula Cronin, Rosalie Viney

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 3/2013

Abstract

Background

The EQ-5D-5L has recently been developed to improve the sensitivity of the widely used three-level version. Valuation studies are required before the use of this new instrument can be adopted. The use of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) in this area is a promising area of research.

Purpose

To test the plausibility and acceptability of estimating an Australian algorithm for the newly developed five-level version of the EQ-5D using a DCE.

Methods

A choice experiment was designed, consisting of 200 choice sets blocked such that each respondent answered 10 choice sets. Each choice set presented two health state–duration combinations, and an immediate death option. The experiment was implemented in an online Australian-representative sample. A random-effects probit model was estimated. To explore the feasibility of the approach, an indicative algorithm was developed. The algorithm is transformed to a 0 to 1 scale suitable for use to estimate quality-adjusted life-year weights for use in economic evaluation.

Results

A total of 973 respondents undertook the choice experiment. Respondents were slightly younger and better educated than the general Australian population. Of the 973 respondents, 932 (95.8 %) completed all ten choice sets, and a further 12 completed some of the choice sets. In choice sets in which one health state–duration combination dominated another, the dominant option was selected on 89.5 % of occasions. The mean and median completion times were 17.9 and 9.4 min, respectively, exhibiting a highly skewed distribution. The estimation results are broadly consistent with the monotonic nature of the EQ-5D-5L. Utility is increasing in life expectancy (i.e., respondents tend to prefer health profiles with longer life expectancy), and mainly decreases in higher levels in each dimension of the instrument. A high proportion of respondents found the task clear and relatively easy to complete.

Conclusions

DCEs are a feasible approach to the estimation of utility weights for more complex multi-attribute utility instruments such as the EQ-5D-5L.

Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E. Review and critique of health related multi attribute utility instruments. Research Paper 64. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University; 2011.

Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng Y-S, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health (in press).

Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, King M, Street D, Ratcliffe J. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1194–200.PubMedCrossRef

Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.PubMedCrossRef

Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002;11(4):341–53.PubMedCrossRef

Tilling C, Devlin N, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K. Protocols for time tradeoff valuations of health states worse than dead: a literature review. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(5):610–9.PubMedCrossRef

Robinson A, Spencer A. Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ. 2006;15(4):393–402.PubMedCrossRef

Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012;31:306–18.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Stolk EA, Oppe M, Scalone L, Krabbe PFM. Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2010;13(8):1005–13.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, Cronin P, King M, Ratcliffe J, Street D. Valuing EQ-5D health states: the australian experience. 2012 EuroQol Group Scientific Plenary. Rotterdam, 13/14 Sep 2012.

12.

Street DJ, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. Hoboken: Wiley; 2007.CrossRef

13.

McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. New York: New York Academic Press; 1974. p. 105–142.

14.

Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;34:273–86.CrossRef

15.

Viney R, Norman R, King MT, et al. Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value Health. 2011;14:928–36.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Coast J, Flynn TN, Salisbury C, Louviere J, Peters TJ. Maximising responses to discrete choice experiments: a randomised trial. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2006;5(4):249–60.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Bleichrodt N, Wakker P, Johannesson M. Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. J Risk Uncertain. 1997;15(2):107–14.CrossRef

18.

Hole AR. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ. 2007;16:827–40.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Wittenberg E, Prosser LA. Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses: a framework for understanding who, why and what to do. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(4):225–41.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxford). 2005;27(3):281–91.CrossRef

21.

Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–89.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Greene WH, Hensher DA. Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models. Transportation. 2011;37(3):413–28.CrossRef

23.

Rowen D, Brazier J, Van Hout B. A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. HEDS Discussion Paper 11/15; 2011.

Title: A Pilot Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Preferences for EQ-5D-5L Health States
Authors: Richard Norman
Paula Cronin
Rosalie Viney
Publication date: 01-06-2013
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0035-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

A Pilot Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Preferences for EQ-5D-5L Health States

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

Multilevel Analysis of the Influence of Patients’ and General Practitioners’ Characteristics on Patented Versus Multiple-Sourced Statin Prescribing in France

Erratum to: Cost Effectiveness of Guanfacine Extended-Release versus Atomoxetine for the Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Cost-Utility Analysis of Duloxetine in Osteoarthritis: A US Private Payer Perspective

Time Costs Associated with Informal Care for Colorectal Cancer: An Investigation of the Impact of Alternative Valuation Methods

Patient Preferences Versus Physicians’ Judgement: Does it Make a Difference in Healthcare Decision Making?

Authors’ Reply to Alatorre et al.: “Cost Effectiveness of Guanfacine Extended-Release Versus Atomoxetine for the Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Application of a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison”