PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 305–315 | Cite as

Using a Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Time Trade-Off and Willingness-to-Pay Amounts for Influenza Health-Related Quality of Life at Different Ages

  • Lisa A. Prosser
  • Katherine Payne
  • Donna Rusinak
  • Ping Shi
  • Mark Messonnier
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Recent research suggests that values for health-related quality of life may vary with the age of the patient. Traditional health state valuation questions and discrete choice experiments are two approaches that could be used to value health.

Objective

To measure whether public values for health vary with the age of the affected individual.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment was administered via the Internet in December 2007 to measure preferences for different attributes of influenza-related health-related quality of life: age of hypothetical affected individual (range 1–85 years), length of episode (days of illness), severity of illness (workdays lost) and time trade-off or willingness-to-pay amounts. Each respondent answered identical choice questions for a hypothetical family member and for himself/herself. Data on sociodemographic characteristics and influenza illness experience were also collected. Respondents were US adults randomly sampled from an Internet survey panel (n = 1,012). The relative value of attributes was estimated using generalized estimating equations and controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and illness experience. Marginal time traded and marginal willingness to pay using discrete choice and traditional time trade-off or willingness-to-pay questions were compared.

Results

Respondents preferred shorter influenza episodes but did not significantly prefer fewer workdays lost if episode length was held constant. Respondents were more likely to choose to avert uncomplicated illness in children and less likely to choose to avert uncomplicated illness in working-age adults. Marginal time trade-off and willingness-to-pay amounts elicited using discrete choice questions were larger than those elicited using direct valuation questions.

Conclusions

Approaches that assume values for health-related quality of life do not vary with the age of a patient may bias economic analyses that use these values. If patient age could affect valuations, then age should be included in the valuation exercise. Additional research should evaluate the effect of patient age on values for other conditions.

Keywords

Influenza Discrete Choice Choice Task Discrete Choice Experiment Influenza Illness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Drs. Timothy Uyeki and Laurie Kamimoto (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]) for assistance in developing descriptions of influenza illness and Dr. David Pihlens (Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology Sydney) for consultation on the experimental design. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Tracy Lieu and Dr. Steve Roberts for providing constructive comments, as well as Acham Gebremariam and Kara Lamarand for analytic and research assistance.

Author contributions

Dr. Prosser conceived and designed the study, led the analysis, and wrote the paper. She can also serve as guarantor for the overall content. Dr. Payne contributed to the design and analysis of the study as well as contributing to drafting the paper. Ms. Rusinak assisted with survey development, led survey administration, and contributed to revising the paper. Ms. Shi contributed to the analytic plan and conducted the statistical analyses. Dr. Messonnier contributed to the design of the study and interpretation of results, and contributed to drafting the paper.

Funding source

Funding for this project was provided from the Harvard-CDC Joint Initiative in Vaccine Economics. Dr. Payne was also funded in part by an RCUK academic fellowship. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the CDC.

Conflicts of interest

The authors do not have any known conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

40273_2013_29_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (125 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 125 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Prosser LA, Hammitt JK, Keren R. Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: theoretical and methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:713–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Petrou S, Gray R. Methodological challenges posed by economic evaluations of early childhood intervention programmes. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4:175–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14:403–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:661–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hauber AB, Johnson FR, Sauriol L, Lescrauwaet B. Risking health to avoid injections: preferences of Canadians with type 2 diabetes. Diab Care. 2005;28:2243–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Viney R, Norman R, King M, et al. Valuing EQ-5D health states using choice experiments and time trade-off. In: 31st Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making; 2009; Hollywood, CA: SMDM; 18–21 Oct 2009.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prosser LA, Bridges CB, Uyeki TM, et al. Values for preventing influenza-related morbidity and vaccine adverse events in children. Health Quality Life Outcomes. 2005;3:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prosser LA, Payne K, Rusinak D, Shi P, Uyeki T, Messonnier M. Valuing health across the lifespan: health state preferences for seasonal influenza illnesses in patients of different ages. Value Health. 2011;14:135–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang L, Krosnick JA. National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus the Internet: comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opin Q. 2009;73:641–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2005;14:1079–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mooney CZ, Duval RD. Bootstrapping: a nonparametric approach to statistical inference. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    US Census Bureau. The 2009 statistical abstract: the national data book. U.S. Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau; 2009. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2009/2009edition.html. Accessed 27 June 2012.
  14. 14.
    Jenkins RR, Owens N, Wiggins LB. Valuing reduced risks to children: the case of bicycle safety helmets. Contemp Econ Policy. 2001;19:397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu J, Hammitt JK, Wang J, Liu J. Mother’s willingness to pay for her own and her child’s health: a contingent valuation study in Taiwan. Health Economics. 2000;9:319–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wittenberg E, Halpern E, Divi N, Prosser LA, Araki SS, Weeks JC. The effect of age, race and gender on preference scores for hypothetical health states. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:645–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tappenden P, Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Chilcott J. A stated preference binary choice experiment to explore NICE decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:685–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE guidance. London: NICE; 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/998/50/SVJ2ForPublicConsultation.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2013.
  19. 19.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE Citizens Council report on age. London: NICE, 2003. http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/Citizenscouncil_report_age.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2010.
  20. 20.
    Ryan M. A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. Health Econ. 2004;13:291–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ryan M, Watson V. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2009;18:389–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Aslam A. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012;31:306–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ratcliffe J, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Symonds T, Brown M. Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire. Health Econ. 2009;18:1261–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wright DR, Wittenberg E, Swan JS, Miksad RA, Prosser LA. Methods for measuring temporary health states for cost-utility analyses. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:713–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Flynn TN. Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values: issues to consider. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:711–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ratcliffe J, Buxton M, Young T, Longworth L. Determining priority for liver transplantation: a comparison of cost per QALY and discrete choice experiment-generated public preferences. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4:249–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fiore AE, Uyeki TM, Broder K, Finelli L, Euler GL, Singleton JA, et al. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010;59(RR08):1–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa A. Prosser
    • 1
    • 2
  • Katherine Payne
    • 3
  • Donna Rusinak
    • 2
  • Ping Shi
    • 2
  • Mark Messonnier
    • 4
  1. 1.Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit, Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics and Communicable DiseasesUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Population MedicineHarvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care InstituteBostonUSA
  3. 3.Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Institute of Population HealthThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  4. 4.National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations