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 STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 9/2010

01-09-2010 | Leading Article

Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values

Issues to Consider

Author: Dr Terry N. Flynn

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 9/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

There is increasing interest in using ranking tasks, discrete choice experiments and best-worst scaling studies to estimate QALY values for use in cost-utility analysis. The research frontier in choice modelling is moving rapidly, with a number of issues being explored across several disciplines. These issues include the estimation of discount factors, proper modelling of the variance scale factor and the estimation of individual-level utility functions. Some of these issues are particularly acute when discrete choice tasks are used to facilitate extra-welfarist analyses that rely on populationbased values. There are also potential problems in implementing such tasks that have received little interest in the non-health discrete choice literature because they are specific to the QALY framework. This article details these issues and offers recommendations on the conduct of 21st century QALY valuation exercises that propose to use any tasks that rely on discrete choices.
Literature
1.
Arnesen T, Trommald M. Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable? A systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Econ 2005; 14: 39–53
2.
3.
Luce RD. Individual choice behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959
4.
Williams A. The measurement and valuation of health: a chronicle [report no. 136]. York: University of York, 1995
5.
Ryan M, Netten A, Skatun D, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome: an application to social care for older people. J Health Econ 2006; 25 (5): 927–44PubMedCrossRef
6.
Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med 2008; 67: 874–82PubMedCrossRef
7.
Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR. Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1985
8.
Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 1927; 34: 273–86CrossRef
9.
McFadden D, Zarembka P. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior: frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press, 1974: 105–42
10.
Hensher DA, Louviere JJ, Swait J. Combining sources of preference data. J Econom 1999; 89: 197–221CrossRef
11.
Louviere JJ. What you don’t know might hurt you: some unresolved issues in the design and analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ Res Econ 2006; 34: 173–88CrossRef
12.
Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance scale heterogeneity matters. Soc Sci Med. In press
13.
McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econom 2000; 15 (15): 447–70CrossRef
14.
15.
Luce RD, Suppes P, Bush RR, et al. Preference utility and subjective probability: handbook of mathematical psychology. Vol III. New York: Wiley, 1965: 249–410
16.
Marley AAJ. Some probabilistic models of simple choice and ranking. J Math Psychol 1968; 5: 333–55CrossRef
17.
Beggs S, Cardell S, Hausman J. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J Econom 1981; 16: 1–19CrossRef
18.
Salomon JA. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul Health Metr 2003; 1 (1): 12PubMedCrossRef
19.
McCabe C, Brazier JE, Gilks P, et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. JHealth Econ 2006; 25: 418–31CrossRef
20.
Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Marley AAJ, et al. Rescaling quality of life values from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: a cautionary tale. Popul Health Metr 2008; 6: 1–6CrossRef
21.
Hausman JA, Ruud PA. Specifying and testing economic models for rank-ordered data. J Econom 1987; 34: 83–104CrossRef
22.
Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T, Shiroishi F. Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data. J Bus Res 1991; 23: 253–68CrossRef
23.
Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Pub Pol Mark 1992; 11 (1): 12–25
24.
Louviere JJ, Street DJ, Burgess L, et al. Modelling the choices of single individuals by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. J Choice Modell 2008; 1 (1): 128–63
25.
Helson H. Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1964
26.
Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000CrossRef
27.
Lancsar E, Louviere JJ. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (8): 661–77PubMedCrossRef
28.
Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the differences between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 2002; 11: 447–56PubMedCrossRef
29.
Street DJ, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2007CrossRef
30.
Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J Math Psychol 2005; 49: 464–80CrossRef
31.
Marley AAJ, Flynn TN, Louviere JJ. Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. J Math Psychol 2008; 52: 281–96CrossRef
32.
Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, McGhan WF, et al. Using conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences. Drug Inf J 1999; 33: 849–58CrossRef
33.
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 (1): 171–89PubMedCrossRef
34.
Carson RT, Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ Res Econ 2007; 37: 181–200CrossRef
35.
Swait J, Louviere JJ. The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models. J Market Res 1993; 30: 305–14CrossRef
36.
Dolan P. Developing methods that really do value the ‘Q’ in the QALY. Health Econ Pol Law 2008; 3: 69–77
37.
Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J 2008; 118: 215–34CrossRef
38.
39.
Attema AE, Brouwer WBF. The correction of TTO-scores for utility curvature using a risk-free utility elicitation method. J Health Econ 2009; 28: 234–43PubMedCrossRef
40.
Salisbury LC, Feinberg FM. Alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in marketing research: theory, measurement and experimental test. Market Sci 2010; 29 (1): 1–17CrossRef
41.
Yatchew A, Griliches Z. Specification error in probit models. Rev Econ Stat 1985; 67 (1): 134–9CrossRef
42.
Metadata
Title
Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values
Issues to Consider
Author
Dr Terry N. Flynn
Publication date
01-09-2010
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 9/2010
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11535660-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 9/2010

PharmacoEconomics 9/2010 Go to the issue

Correspondence

The Authors’ Reply

Review Article

Frequency of Treatment-EffectModification Affecting Indirect Comparisons

Correspondence

Cost Effectiveness of Venous Thromboembolism Pharmacological Prophylaxis in Total Hip and Knee Replacement: A Systematic Review

Correspondence

The Authors’ Reply

Original Research Article

An Economic Evaluation of Colesevelam when Added to Metformin-, Insulinor Sulfonylurea-Based Therapies in Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Original Research Article

A New Method for Examining the Cost Savings of Reducing COPD Exacerbations