Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

In recent years, discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have become frequently used to generate utility values, but there are a diverse range of approaches to do this. The primary focus of this systematic review is to summarise the methods used for the design and analysis of DCEs when estimating utility values in both generic and condition-specific preference-based measures.

Methods

Published literature using DCEs to estimate utility values from preference-based instruments were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL using PRISMA guidelines. To assess the different DCE methods, standardised information was extracted from the articles including the DCE design method, the number of choice sets, the number of DCE pairs per person, randomisation of questions, analysis method, logical consistency tests and techniques for anchoring utilities. The CREATE checklist was used to assess the quality of the studies.

Results

A total of 38 studies with samples from the general population, students and patients were included. Values for health states described using generic multi attribute instruments (MAUIs) (especially the EQ-5D) were the most commonly explored using DCEs. The studies showed considerable methodology and design diversity (number of alternatives, attributes, sample size, choice task presentation and analysis). Despite these differences, the quality of articles reporting the methods used for the DCE was generally high.

Conclusion

DCEs are an important approach to measure utility values for both generic and condition-specific instruments. However, a gold standard method cannot yet be recommended.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kluge, E.-H.W.: Resource allocation in healthcare: implications of models of medicine as a profession. Medscape Gen. Med. 9(1), 57–57 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Griffin, S., Claxton, K., Sculpher, M.: Decision analysis for resource allocation in health care. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 13(3_suppl), 23–30 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G.L., Torrance, G.W.: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, UK (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kularatna, S., Whitty, J.A., Johnson, N.W., Jayasinghe, R., Scuffham, P.A.: A comparison of health state utility values associated with oral potentially malignant disorders and oral cancer in Sri Lanka assessed using the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC-8D. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 14, 101 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0502-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Whitehead, S.J., Ali, S.: Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br. Med. Bull. 96(1), 5–21 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gu, Y., Norman, R., Viney, R.: Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments—a qaly space model approach. Health Econ. 23(9), 1098–1114 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Krabbe, P.F., Devlin, N.J., Stolk, E.A., Shah, K.K., Oppe, M., van Hout, B., Quik, E.H., Pickard, A.S., Xie, F.: Multinational evidence of the applicability and robustness of discrete choice modeling for deriving EQ-5D-5L health-state values. Med. Care 52(11), 935–943 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000178

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bjornson, K., McLaughlin, J.: The measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in children with cerebral palsy. Eur. J. Neurol. 8(s5), 183–193 (2001)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Scuffham, P.A., Whitty, J.A., Mitchell, A., Viney, R.: The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations. PharmacoEconomics 26(4), 297–310 (2008)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McCabe, C., Brazier, J., Gilks, P., Tsuchiya, A., Roberts, J., O’Hagan, A., Stevens, K.: Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J. Health Econ. 25(3), 418–431 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.07.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ryan, M., Netten, A., Skåtun, D., Smith, P.: Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome—an application to social care for older people. J. Health Econ. 25(5), 927–944 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.01.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Van Hout, B.: A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. Med. Decis. Making 35(3), 328–340 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14559542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lancsar, E., Wildman, J., Donaldson, C., Ryan, M., Baker, R.: Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J. Health Econ. 30(2), 466–478 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.01.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ali, S., Ronaldson, S.: Ordinal preference elicitation methods in health economics and health services research: using discrete choice experiments and ranking methods. Br. Med. Bull. 103(1), 21–44 (2012)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stolk, E.A., Oppe, M., Scalone, L., Krabbe, P.F.: Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health 13(8), 1005–1013 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00783.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brazier, J., Rowen, D., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A.: Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale. Eur. J. Health Econ. 13(5), 575–587 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-011-0352-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ludwig, K., von der Schulenburg, J.G., Greiner, W.: Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L with composite time trade-off for the German population—an exploratory study. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 15(1), 39 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0617-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Craig, B.M., Busschbach, J.J.V.: Towards a more universal approach in health valuation. Health Econ. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1650

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Clark, M.D., Determann, D., Petrou, S., Moro, D., de Bekker-Grob, E.W.: Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics 32(9), 883–902 (2014)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Street, D.J., Viney, R.: One method, many methodological choices: a structured review of discrete-choice experiments for health state valuation. PharmacoEconomics 37(1), 29–43 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0714-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Lorgelly, P., Lancsar, E., Ratcliffe, J., Brazier, J., Viney, R.: Is dimension order important when valuing health states using discrete choice experiments including duration? PharmacoEconomics (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0475-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. King, M.T., Viney, R., Simon Pickard, A., Rowen, D., Aaronson, N.K., Brazier, J.E., Cella, D., Costa, D.S.J., Fayers, P.M., Kemmler, G., McTaggart-Cowen, H., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Peacock, S., Street, D.J., Young, T.A., Norman, R., On behalf of the, M.C.: 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 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0582-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bansback, N., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., Anis, A.: Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J. Health Econ. 31(1), 306–318 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.11.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Burr, J.M., Kilonzo, M., Vale, L., Ryan, M.: Developing a preference-based Glaucoma Utility Index using a discrete choice experiment. Optom. Vis. Sci. 84(8), 797–808 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181339f30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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. 18(11), 1261–1276 (2009)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(4), 264–269 (2009)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Xie, F., Pickard, A.S., Krabbe, P.F., Revicki, D., Viney, R., Devlin, N., Feeny, D.: A checklist for reporting valuation studies of multi-attribute utility-based instruments (CREATE). PharmacoEconomics 33(8), 867–877 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0292-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Bridges, J.F., Hauber, A.B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L.A., Regier, D.A., Johnson, F.R., Mauskopf, J.: Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health 14(4), 403–413 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. de Bekker-Grob, E.W., Ryan, M., Gerard, K.: Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 21(2), 145–172 (2012)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Selivanova, A., Buskens, E., Krabbe, P.F.M.: Head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L health values. PharmacoEconomics 36(6), 715–725 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0647-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N., Brazier, J., Cella, D., Costa, D., Fayers, P., Kemmler, G., Peacock, S., Pickard, A., Rowen, D., Street, D., Velikova, G., Young, T., King, M., Aaronson, N.K., Brazier, J.E., Costa, D.S.J., Fayers, P.M., Pickard, A.S.: Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual. Life Res. 25(3), 637–649 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Norman, R., Kemmler, G., Viney, R., Pickard, A.S., Gamper, E., Holzner, B., Nerich, V., King, M.: Order of presentation of dimensions does not systematically bias utility weights from a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 19(8), 1033–1038 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.07.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gamper, E.-M., Holzner, B., King, M.T., Norman, R., Viney, R., Nerich, V., Kemmler, G.: Test-retest reliability of discrete choice experiment for valuations of QLU-C10D health states. Value Health 21(8), 958–966 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.11.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Huynh, E., Coast, J., Rose, J., Kinghorn, P., Flynn, T.: Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life. Soc. Sci. Med. 189, 114–128 (2017)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Pickard, A.S., Ramos Goñi, J.M., Jo, M.W., Igarashi, A., Jo, M.-W.: Transforming latent utilities to health utilities east does not meet west. Health Econ. 26(12), 1524–1533 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Krabbe, P.F.M., Stolk, E.A., Devlin, N.J., Xie, F., Quik, E.H., Pickard, A.S.: Head-to-head comparison of health-state values derived by a probabilistic choice model and scores on a visual analogue scale. Eur. J. Health Econ. 18(8), 967–977 (2017)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pullenayegum, E., Xie, F.: Scoring the 5-level EQ-5D: can latent utilities derived from a discrete choice model be transformed to health utilities derived from time tradeoff tasks? Med. Decis. Making 33(4), 567–578 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13475718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Scalone, L., Stalmeier, P.F., Milani, S., Krabbe, P.F.: Values for health states with different life durations. Eur. J. Health Econ. 16(9), 917–925 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0634-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ratcliffe, J., Flynn, T., Terlich, F., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., Sawyer, M.: Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation: an application of profile case best-worst scaling to the Child Health Utility 9D. PharmacoEconomics 30(8), 713–727 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2165/11597900-000000000-00000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Prosser, L.A., Payne, K., Rusinak, D., Shi, P., Messonnier, M.: 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. PharmacoEconomics 31(4), 305–315 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0029-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Purba, F., Hunfeld, J., Iskandarsyah, A., Fitriana, T., Sadarjoen, S., Ramos-Goñi, J., Passchier, J., Busschbach, J., Purba, F.D., Hunfeld, J.A.M., Fitriana, T.S., Sadarjoen, S.S., Ramos-Goñi, J.M., Busschbach, J.J.V.: The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L Value Set. PharmacoEconomics 35(11), 1153–1165 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0538-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Eckert, J., Lichters, M., Piedmont, S., Vogt, B., Robra, B.P.: Case vignettes based on EQ-5D to elicit stated preferences for health services utilization from the insurees' perspective. BMC Health Serv. Res. 15, 481 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1143-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Jonker, M.F., Donkers, B., de Bekker-Grob, E.W., Stolk, E.A.: Advocating a paradigm shift in health-state valuations: the estimation of time-preference corrected QALY tariffs. Value Health 21(8), 993–1001 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.01.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Craig, B.M., Rand, K.: Choice defines QALYs: a US valuation of the EQ-5D-5L. Med. Care 56(6), 529–536 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ramos-Goni, J.M., Rivero-Arias, O., Errea, M., Stolk, E.A., Herdman, M., Cabases, J.M.: Dealing with the health state 'dead' when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states. Eur. J. Health Econ. 14(Suppl 1), S33–42 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0511-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ramos-Goñi, J.M., Pinto-Prades, J.L., Oppe, M., Cabasés, J.M., Serrano-Aguilar, P., Rivero-Arias, O.: Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med. Care 55(7), e51–e58 (2017)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bansback, N., Hole, A.R., Mulhern, B., Tsuchiya, A.: Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: addressing design and sampling issues. Soc. Sci. Med. 114, 38–48 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.026

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Mulhern, B., Shah, K., Janssen, M.F., Longworth, L., Ibbotson, R.: Valuing health using time trade-off and discrete choice experiment methods: does dimension order impact on health state values? Value Health 19(2), 210–217 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.11.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Shiroiwa, T., Ikeda, S., Noto, S., Igarashi, A., Fukuda, T., Saito, S., Shimozuma, K.: Comparison of value set based on DCE and/or TTO data: scoring for EQ-5D-5L health states in Japan. Value Health 19(5), 648–654 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Versteegh, M.M., Brouwer, W.B.F.: Patient and general public preferences for health states: a call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc. Sci. Med. 165, 66–74 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.043

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Huber, J., Zwerina, K.: The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Market. Res. 307–317 (1996).

  53. Vanniyasingam, T., Cunningham, C.E., Foster, G., Thabane, L.: Simulation study to determine the impact of different design features on design efficiency in discrete choice experiments. BMJ Open 6(7), e011985 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011985.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H.: Applied choice analysis, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, UK (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kitamura, R., Yoshii, T., Yamamoto, T.: Expanding sphere of travel behaviour research: selected papers from the 11th international conference on travel behaviour research. Emerald Group Publishing, (2009)

  56. De Martino, B., Harrison, N.A., Knafo, S., Bird, G., Dolan, R.J.: Explaining enhanced logical consistency during decision making in autism. J. Neurosci. 28(42), 10746–10750 (2008)

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Arrow, K.J.: Risk perception in psychology and economics. Econ. Inq. 20(1), 1–9 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  58. 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 11(3), 287–298 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0035-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Mulhern, B., Bansback, N., Hole, A.R., Tsuchiya, A.: Using discrete choice experiments with duration to model EQ-5D-5L health state preferences. Med. Decis. Making 37(3), 285–297 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16670616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lancsar, E., Louviere, J.: Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 15(8), 797–811 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hakim, Z.: Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling. Health Econ. 8(2), 103–116 (1999)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lamers, L.M.: The transformation of utilities for health states worse than death: consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value sets. Med. Care 45(3), 238–244 (2007)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Robinson, A., Spencer, A., Moffatt, P.: A framework for estimating health state utility values within a discrete choice experiment: modeling risky choices. Med. Decis. Making 35(3), 341–350 (2015)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Attema, A.E., Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Versteegh, M.M., Stolk, E.A.: Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods. Eur. J. Health Econ. 14(Suppl 1), 53–64 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0508-x

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Hauber, A.B., González, J.M., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C.G.M., Prior, T., Marshall, D.A., Cunningham, C., Ijzerman, M.J., Bridges, J.F.P.: Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health 19(4), 300–315 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research team would like to thank Saval Khanal and Emma (Tianjiao) Wang for their help on being the secondary readers of articles.

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia

    Mina Bahrampour, Joshua Byrnes, Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes

  2. School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

    Richard Norman

Authors
  1. Mina Bahrampour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua Byrnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard Norman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul A. Scuffham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin Downes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MB, JB, RN, PS and MD conceived the study and contributed to the design of the study; MB wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors read, contributed and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mina Bahrampour.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 296 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bahrampour, M., Byrnes, J., Norman, R. et al. Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods. Eur J Health Econ 21, 983–992 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01189-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01189-6

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation