Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

Exploring the importance of controlling heteroskedasticity and heterogeneity in health valuation: a case study on Dutch EQ-5D-5L

Authors: Suzana Karim, Benjamin M. Craig, Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Respondents in a health valuation study may have different sources of error (i.e., heteroskedasticity), tastes (differences in the relative effects of each attribute level), and scales (differences in the absolute effects of all attributes). Although prior studies have compared values by preference-elicitation tasks (e.g., paired comparison [PC] and best–worst scaling case 2 [BWS]), no study has yet controlled for heteroskedasticity and heterogeneity (taste and scale) simultaneously in health valuation.

Methods

Preferences on EQ-5D-5L profiles were elicited from a random sample of 380 adults from the general population of the Netherlands, using 24 PC and 25 BWS case 2 tasks. To control for heteroskedasticity and heterogeneity (taste and scale) simultaneously, we estimated Dutch EQ-5D-5L values using conditional, heteroskedastic, and scale-adjusted latent class (SALC) logit models by maximum likelihood.

Results

After controlling for heteroskedasticity, the PC and BWS values were highly correlated (Pearson's correlation: 0.9167, CI: 0.9109–0.9222) and largely agreed (Lin's concordance: 0.7658, CI: 0.7542–0.7769) on a pits scale. In terms of preference heterogeneity, some respondents (mostly young men) failed to account for any of the EQ-5D-5L attributes (i.e., garbage class), and others had a lower scale (59%; p-value: 0.123). Overall, the SALC model produced a consistent Dutch EQ-5D-5L value set on a pits scale, like the original study (Pearson's correlation:0.7295; Lin's concordance: 0.6904).

Conclusions

This paper shows the merits of simultaneously controlling for heteroskedasticity and heterogeneity in health valuation. In this case, the SALC model dispensed with a garbage class automatically and adjusted the scale for those who failed the PC dominant task. Future analysis may include more behavioral variables to better control heteroskedasticity and heterogeneity in health valuation.

Highlights

  • The Dutch EQ-5D-5L values based on paired comparison [PC] and best-worst scaling [BWS] responses were highly correlated and largely agreed after controlling for heteroskedasticity.
  • Controlling for taste and scale heterogeneity simultaneously enhanced the Dutch EQ-5D-5Lvalues by automatically dispensing with a garbage class and adjusting the scale for those who failed the dominant task.
  • After controlling for heteroskedasticity and heterogeneity, this study produced Dutch EQ-5D-5L values on a pits scale moderately concordant with the original values.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Rotating OMEP coding means permuting the levels of one or more of the attributes such that an equivalent OMEP design is obtained.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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;20:1727–36.CrossRef 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;20:1727–36.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–72.CrossRef de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21:145–72.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Vass CM, Boeri M, Karim S, et al. Accounting for preference heterogeneity in discrete-choice experiments: a review of the state of practice. Value Health. 2022;25:685–94.CrossRef Vass CM, Boeri M, Karim S, et al. Accounting for preference heterogeneity in discrete-choice experiments: a review of the state of practice. Value Health. 2022;25:685–94.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Craig BM, Lancsar E, Mühlbacher AC, et al. Health preference research: an overview. Patient. 2017;10:507–10.CrossRef Craig BM, Lancsar E, Mühlbacher AC, et al. Health preference research: an overview. Patient. 2017;10:507–10.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:201–26.CrossRef Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, et al. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:201–26.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, et al. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:993–1004.CrossRef Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, et al. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:993–1004.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Bansback N, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, et al. Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e31115.CrossRef Bansback N, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, et al. Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e31115.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Craig BM, Busschbach JJ, Salomon JA. Modeling ranking, time trade-off, and visual analog scale values for EQ-5D health states: a review and comparison of methods. Med Care. 2009;47:634–41.CrossRef Craig BM, Busschbach JJ, Salomon JA. Modeling ranking, time trade-off, and visual analog scale values for EQ-5D health states: a review and comparison of methods. Med Care. 2009;47:634–41.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Craig BM, Pickard AS, Stolk E, et al. US valuation of the SF-6D. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33:793–803.CrossRef Craig BM, Pickard AS, Stolk E, et al. US valuation of the SF-6D. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33:793–803.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Farkas M, Huynh E, Gulácsi L, et al. Development of population tariffs for the ICECAP-A instrument for hungary and their comparison With the UK Tariffs. Value in Health. 2021. Farkas M, Huynh E, Gulácsi L, et al. Development of population tariffs for the ICECAP-A instrument for hungary and their comparison With the UK Tariffs. Value in Health. 2021.
11.
go back to reference Krucien N, Watson V, Ryan M. Is best-worst scaling suitable for health state valuation? A comparison with discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2017;26:e1–16.CrossRef Krucien N, Watson V, Ryan M. Is best-worst scaling suitable for health state valuation? A comparison with discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2017;26:e1–16.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, et al. Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best-worst scaling? Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:281–8.CrossRef Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, et al. Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best-worst scaling? Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:281–8.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Craig BM, Busschbach JJV, Salomon JA. Keep it simple: ranking health states yields values similar to cardinal measurement approaches. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:296–305.CrossRef Craig BM, Busschbach JJV, Salomon JA. Keep it simple: ranking health states yields values similar to cardinal measurement approaches. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:296–305.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Best–worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26:171–89.CrossRef Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Best–worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26:171–89.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Louviere J, Eagle T. Confound it! That Pesky Little Scale Constant Messes Up Our Convenient Assumptions. In: Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference. 2006: 211–28. Louviere J, Eagle T. Confound it! That Pesky Little Scale Constant Messes Up Our Convenient Assumptions. In: Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference. 2006: 211–28.
16.
go back to reference Craig BM, de Bekker-Grob EW, González Sepúlveda JM, et al. A guide to observable differences in stated preference evidence. Patient. 2021: 1–11. Craig BM, de Bekker-Grob EW, González Sepúlveda JM, et al. A guide to observable differences in stated preference evidence. Patient. 2021: 1–11.
17.
go back to reference Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. 2000. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. 2000.
18.
go back to reference Karim S, Craig BM, Poteet S. Does controlling for scale heterogeneity better explain respondents’ preference segmentation in discrete choice experiments? A case study of us health insurance demand. Med Decis Mak. 2021;41:573–83.CrossRef Karim S, Craig BM, Poteet S. Does controlling for scale heterogeneity better explain respondents’ preference segmentation in discrete choice experiments? A case study of us health insurance demand. Med Decis Mak. 2021;41:573–83.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Flynn T, Yoo H, et al. Key issues and potential solutions for understanding healthcare preference heterogeneity free from patient-level scale confounds. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res. 2018;11:1–4.CrossRef Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Flynn T, Yoo H, et al. Key issues and potential solutions for understanding healthcare preference heterogeneity free from patient-level scale confounds. Patient Patient Cent Outcomes Res. 2018;11:1–4.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Magidson J, Vermunt J. Removing the Scale Factor Confound in Multinomial Logit Choice Models to Obtain Better Estimates of Preference 1. Sawtooth Softw Conf. 2007. Magidson J, Vermunt J. Removing the Scale Factor Confound in Multinomial Logit Choice Models to Obtain Better Estimates of Preference 1. Sawtooth Softw Conf. 2007.
21.
go back to reference Versteegh MM, Vermeulen KM, Evers SMAA, et al. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19:343–52.CrossRef Versteegh MM, Vermeulen KM, Evers SMAA, et al. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19:343–52.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16:3–13.CrossRef Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16:3–13.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, et al. Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27:7–22.CrossRef Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, et al. Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27:7–22.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J Math Psychol. 2008;52:281–96.CrossRef Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J Math Psychol. 2008;52:281–96.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Ramos-Goñi JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Oppe M, et al. Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med Care. 2017;55:e51–8.CrossRef Ramos-Goñi JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Oppe M, et al. Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med Care. 2017;55:e51–8.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Team RDC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020. Team RDC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020.
27.
go back to reference Hat O. maxLik: a package for maximum likelihood estimation in R. Comput Stat. 2011;26:443–58.CrossRef Hat O. maxLik: a package for maximum likelihood estimation in R. Comput Stat. 2011;26:443–58.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Hadley W, Mara A, Jennifer B, et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4:1686.CrossRef Hadley W, Mara A, Jennifer B, et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4:1686.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Hole AR. Small-sample properties of tests for heteroscedasticity in the conditional logit model. Econ Bull. 2006;3:1–14. Hole AR. Small-sample properties of tests for heteroscedasticity in the conditional logit model. Econ Bull. 2006;3:1–14.
30.
go back to reference Deshazo JR, Fermo G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manag. 2002;44:123–43.CrossRef Deshazo JR, Fermo G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manag. 2002;44:123–43.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Davis K, Burton M, Kragt M. Scale heterogeneity and its implications for discrete choice analysis. Land Econ. 2019;95:353–68.CrossRef Davis K, Burton M, Kragt M. Scale heterogeneity and its implications for discrete choice analysis. Land Econ. 2019;95:353–68.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Hess S, Train K. Correlation and scale in mixed logit models. J Choice Modell. 2017;23:1–8.CrossRef Hess S, Train K. Correlation and scale in mixed logit models. J Choice Modell. 2017;23:1–8.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Greene W, Hensher D. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp Res Part B Methodol. 2003;37:681–98.CrossRef Greene W, Hensher D. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp Res Part B Methodol. 2003;37:681–98.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Mv M, Mv K, Maae S, et al. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19:343–52.CrossRef Mv M, Mv K, Maae S, et al. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19:343–52.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Swait J, Adamowicz W. The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching. J Consum Res. 2001;28:135–48.CrossRef Swait J, Adamowicz W. The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: a latent class model of decision strategy switching. J Consum Res. 2001;28:135–48.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Craig BM, Ramachandran S. Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15:835–48.CrossRef Craig BM, Ramachandran S. Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15:835–48.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Exploring the importance of controlling heteroskedasticity and heterogeneity in health valuation: a case study on Dutch EQ-5D-5L
Authors
Suzana Karim
Benjamin M. Craig
Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-01989-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2022 Go to the issue