Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Discrete choice experiment with duration versus time trade-off: a comparison of test–retest reliability of health utility elicitation approaches in SF-6Dv2 valuation

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate and compare the test–retest reliability of discrete choice experiments with duration (DCETTO) and time trade-off (TTO) in the Chinese SF-6Dv2 valuation study.

Methods

During face-to-face interviews, a representative sample of the Chinese general population completed 8 TTO tasks and 10 DCETTO tasks. Retest interviews were conducted after two weeks. For both DCETTO and TTO, the consistency of raw responses between the two tests was firstly evaluated at the individual level. Regressions were conducted to investigate the association between the test–retest reliability and the respondents’ characteristics and the severity of health states. Consistency was then analyzed at the aggregate level by comparing the rank order of the coefficients of dimensions.

Results

In total, 162 respondents (51.9% male; range 18–80 years) completed the two tests. The intraclass correlations coefficient 0.958 for TTO, with identical values accounting for 59.3% of observations. 76.4% of choices were identical for DCETTO, with a Kappa statistic of 0.528. Respondents’ characteristics had no significant impact while the severity of health states valued in TTO and DCETTO tasks had a significant impact on the test–retest reliability. Both approaches produced relatively stable rank order of dimensions in constrained model estimations between test and retest data.

Conclusions

Individual responses of both approaches are relatively stable over time. The rank orders of dimensions in model estimations between test and retest for TTO and DCETTO are also consistent. The differences of utility estimation between the two tests for DCETTO need to be further investigated based on a larger sample size.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The process of the first interview was as follows [21]: respondents (1) completed inclusion and quota questions, to confirm s/he was eligible; (2) reported their health using the SF-6Dv2; (3) completed the TTO and DCETTO tasks with the order randomized; and (4) reported a series of social-demographic characteristics.

  2. For traditional DCE tasks, the distribution of relative preference for choice A versus B could be observed by evaluating the difference in the severity of the health states (i.e., the severity score of the health state) included in both choices [13]. However, this approach is not applicable in this study given there exists additional life duration dimension in the DCETTO task.

References

  1. Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Saloman, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Group, T. E. (1990). EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., & Thomas, K. (1998). Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1115–1128.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Martin, A. J., Glasziou, P. P., Simes, R. J., & Lumley, T. (2000). A comparison of standard gamble, time trade-off, and adjusted time trade-off scores. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 16(1), 137–147.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Morimoto, T., & Fukui, T. (2002). Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: Review and reference for health care professionals. Journal of Epidemiology, 12(2), 160–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brazier, J., Rowen, D., Yang, Y., & Tsuchiya, A. (2012). Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale. The European Journal of Health Economics, 13(5), 575–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2008). Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics, 26(8), 661–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Craig, B. M., & Busschbach, J. J. (2009). The episodic random utility model unifies time trade-off and discrete choice approaches in health state valuation. Population Health Metrics, 7, 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stolk, E. A., Oppe, M., Scalone, L., & Krabbe, P. F. M. (2010). Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: The case of the EQ-5D. Value in Health, 13(8), 1005–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bansback, N., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Anis, A. (2012). Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. Journal of Health Economics, 31(1), 306–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mulhern, B., Bansback, N., Hole, A. R., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Using discrete choice experiments with duration to model EQ-5D-5L health state preferences: Testing experimental design strategies. Medical Decision Making, 37(3), 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rowen, D., Brazier, J., & Van Hout, B. (2015). A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 328–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Purba, F. D., Hunfeld, J. A. M., Timman, R., Iskandarsyah, A., Fitriana, T. S., Sadarjoen, S. S., et al. (2018). Test-retest reliability of EQ-5D-5L valuation techniques: The composite time trade-off and discrete choice experiments. Value in Health, 21(10), 1243–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2015). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Gamper, E.-M., Holzner, B., King, M. T., Norman, R., Viney, R., Nerich, V., & Kemmler, G. (2018). Test-retest reliability of discrete choice experiment for valuations of QLU-C10D health states. Value in Health, 21(8), 958–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Badia, X., Monserrat, S., Roset, M., & Herdman, M. (1999). Feasibility, validity and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: The visual analogue scale and the time trade-off. Quality of Life Research, 8(4), 303–310.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Robinson, S. (2011). Test-retest reliability of health state valuation techniques: The time trade off and person trade off. Health Economics, 20(11), 1379–1391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim, S. H., Lee, S. I., & Jo, M. W. (2017). Feasibility, comparability, and reliability of the standard gamble compared with the rating scale and time trade-off techniques in Korean population. Quality of Life Research, 26(12), 3387–3397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lin, M. R., Hwang, H. F., Chung, K. P., Huang, C., & Chen, C. Y. (2006). Rating scale, standard gamble, and time trade-off for people with traumatic spinal cord injuries. Physical Therapy, 86(3), 337–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bijlenga, D., Birnie, E., & Bonsel, G. J. (2009). Feasibility, reliability, and validity of three health-state valuation methods using multiple-outcome vignettes on moderate-risk pregnancy at term. Value in Health, 12(5), 821–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Street, D. J., & Viney, R. (2019). One method, many methodological choices: A structured review of discrete-choice experiments for health state valuation. PharmacoEconomics, 37(1), 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wu, J., Xie, S., He, X., Chen, G., Bai, G., Feng, D., et al. (2021). Valuation of SF-6Dv2 health states in China using time trade-off and discrete-choice experiment with a duration dimension. PharmacoEconomics, 39(5), 521–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brazier, J. E., Mulhern, B. J., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Rowen, D., Alonso, J., Vilagut, G., & Ware, J. E. (2020). Developing a new version of the SF-6D health state classification system from the SF-36v2: SF-6Dv2. Medical Care, 58(6), 557–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mulhern, B. J., Bansback, N., Norman, R., & Brazier, J. (2020). Valuing the SF-6Dv2 classification system in the United Kingdom using a discrete-choice experiment with duration. Medical Care, 58(6), 566–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wu, J., Xie, S., He, X., Chen, G., & Brazier, J. E. (2020). The Simplified Chinese version of SF-6Dv2: Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and preliminary psychometric testing. Quality of Life Research, 29(5), 1385–1391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Janssen, B. M., Oppe, M., Versteegh, M. M., & Stolk, E. A. (2013). Introducing the composite time trade-off: A test of feasibility and face validity. The European Journal of Health Economics, 14(Suppl 1), S5-13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Xie, S., Wu, J., He, X., Chen, G., & Brazier, J. E. (2020). Do discrete choice experiments approaches perform better than time trade-off in eliciting health state utilities? Evidence from SF­6Dv2 in China. Value in Health, 23(10), 1391–1399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chrzan, K., & Orme, B. (2000). An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth software research paper series, 98382.

  31. Johnson, F. R., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., Kilambi, V., Mühlbacher, A., Regier, D. A., Bresnahan, B. W., Kanninen, B., & Bridges, J. F. (2013). Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value in Health, 16(1), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Marshall, D. A., Deal, K., Bombard, Y., Leighl, N., MacDonald, K. V., & Trudeau, M. (2016). How do women trade-off benefits and risks in chemotherapy treatment decisions based on gene expression profiling for early-stage breast cancer? A discrete choice experiment. BMJ open, 6(6), e010981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2011). China Sixth National Census 2010. Retrieved April 4, 2022, from: http://www.stats.gov.cn/ztjc/zdtjgz/zgrkpc/dlcrkpc/.

  34. National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2019). China Statistical Yearbook 2018. Retrieved April 4, 2022, from: http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2018/indexeh.htm.

  35. Schmelkin Pedhazur, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: The ABCs of reliability. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(1), 141–150.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Norman, R., Viney, R., Brazier, J., Burgess, L., Cronin, P., King, M., Ratcliffe, J., & Street, D. (2014). Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Medical Decision Making, 34(6), 773–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Viney, R., Norman, R., Brazier, J., Cronin, P., King, M. T., Ratcliffe, J., & Street, D. (2014). An Australian discrete choice experiment to value eq-5d health states. Health Economics, 23(6), 729–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. King, M. T., Viney, R., Simon Pickard, A., Rowen, D., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., et al. (2018). Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. PharmacoEconomics, 36(2), 225–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rowen, D., Mulhern, B., Stevens, K., & Vermaire, J. H. (2018). Estimating a Dutch value set for the pediatric preference-based CHU9D using a discrete choice experiment with duration. Value in Health, 21(10), 1234–1242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant No. 71673197 and No. 72174142). We would like to thank all the interviewers and respondents for taking part in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Shitong Xie

  2. School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China

    Shitong Xie & Jing Wu

  3. Center for Social Science Survey and Data, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China

    Jing Wu

  4. Monash Business School, Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Gang Chen

Authors
  1. Shitong Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jing Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Concept and design: SX, JW, GC. Acquisition of data: SX, JW. Analysis and interpretation of data: SX, JW, GC. Drafting of the manuscript: SX, GC. Statistical analysis: SX, GC. Obtaining funding: JW. Supervision: JW. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jing Wu or Gang Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

JW reported receiving grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China during the conduct of the study. No other conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin University (No. 20180615) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Participants were informed about their freedom of refusal. Anonymity and confidentiality were maintained throughout the research process.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 949 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xie, S., Wu, J. & Chen, G. Discrete choice experiment with duration versus time trade-off: a comparison of test–retest reliability of health utility elicitation approaches in SF-6Dv2 valuation. Qual Life Res 31, 2791–2803 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03159-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03159-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation