Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 34, Issue 8, pp 805–814 | Cite as

The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores

  • Richard Norman
  • Brendan Mulhern
  • Rosalie Viney
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been proposed as a method to estimate utility weights for health states within utility instruments. However, the most appropriate method to anchor the utility values on the full health to dead quality-adjusted life year (QALY) scale remains uncertain. We test four approaches to anchoring in which dead is valued at zero and full health at one.

Methods

We use data from two DCEs valuing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L health states, which presented pairs of health profiles with an associated duration, and a dead option. The approaches to anchoring the results on the required scale were (1) using only preferences between non-dead health profiles; (2) including the dead data, treating it as a health profile with zero duration; (3) explicitly modelling both duration and dead; and (4) using the preferences regarding the dead health state as an external anchor subsequent to the estimation of approach 1.

Results

All approaches lead to differences in the scale of utility decrements, but not the ranking of EQ-5D health states. The models differ in their ability to predict preferences around dead health states, and the characteristics of the value sets in terms of their range and the proportion of states valued as worse than dead.

Discussion

Appropriate anchoring of DCEs with or without complementary time trade-off (TTO) data remains unresolved, and the method chosen will impact on health resource allocation decision making employing the value sets.

Keywords

Utility Function Discrete Choice Experiment Health Profile Full Health Zero Condition 
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

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors (Norman, Mulhern, and Viney) declare no conflict of interests. Data collection was funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant (403303).

Author contributions

Norman conceived and undertook the analysis, and was primarily responsible for drafting the manuscript. Mulhern helped to develop the approaches to anchoring explored in the analysis, and commented on and amended the draft manuscript. Viney was responsible for the design and collection of the underpinning data, and commented on and amended the draft manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.11.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):287–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Norman R, Viney R, Brazier J, Burgess L, Cronin P, King MT, et al. Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(6):773–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, Cronin P, King MT, Ratcliffe J, et al. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value eq-5d health States. Health Econ. 2014;23(6):729–42. doi: 10.1002/hec.2953.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bleichrodt N, Wakker P, Johannesson M. Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. J Risk Uncertain. 1997;15(2):107–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. New York: New York Academic Press; 1974. p. 105–42.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev. 1927;34:273–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Devlin NJ, Krabbe PF. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S1–3. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0502-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PF, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramos-Goñi JM, Rivero-Arias O, Errea M, Stolk EA, Herdman M, Cabases JM. Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states. Eur J Health Econ HEPAC Health Econ Prev Care. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S33–42. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0511-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flynn T. Using conjoint analysis to estimate health state values for cost-utility analysis: issues to consider. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(9):711–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mulhern B, Bansback N, Brazier J, Buckingham K, Cairns J, Devlin N et al. Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(12):vii–xxvi, 1–191. doi: 10.3310/hta18120.
  15. 15.
    Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Marley AA, Coast J, Peters TJ. Rescaling quality of life values from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: a cautionary tale. Popul Health Metrics. 2008;6:6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mulhern B, Longworth L, Brazier J, Rowen D, Bansback N, Devlin N, et al. Binary choice health state valuation and mode of administration: head-to-head comparison of online and CAPI. Value Health. 2013;16(1):104–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.09.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Street DJ, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. Wiley series in probability and statistics. New Jersey: Wiley; 2007.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rand-Hendriksen K, Augestad LA, Dahl FA, Kristiansen IS, Stavem K. A shortcut to mean-based time tradeoff tariffs for the EQ-5D? Med Decis Making. 2012;32(4):569–77. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11431607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tsuchiya A, Dolan P. The QALY model and individual preferences for health states and health profiles over time: a systematic review of the literature. Med Decis Making. 2005;25(4):460–7. doi: 10.1177/0272989X05276854.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Norman
    • 1
  • Brendan Mulhern
    • 2
  • Rosalie Viney
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Public HealthCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE)University of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations