Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

25-05-2022

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

Auteurs: Shitong Xie, Jing Wu, Gang Chen

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2022

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

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.
vorige artikel Heterogeneity in preferences for outcomes of integrated care for persons with multiple chronic diseases: a latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment
volgende artikel Establishing content validity of LIMB-Q Kids: a new patient-reported outcome measure for lower limb deformities
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
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.
 
Literatuur
1.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Saloman, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford University Press.
2.
Group, T. E. (1990). EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
7.
Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2008). Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics, 26(8), 661–677.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
14.
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2015). Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
33.
34.
35.
Schmelkin Pedhazur, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Psychology Press.
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.CrossRef
37.
Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: The ABCs of reliability. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(1), 141–150.CrossRef
38.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Discrete choice experiment with duration versus time trade-off: a comparison of test–retest reliability of health utility elicitation approaches in SF-6Dv2 valuation
Auteurs
Shitong Xie
Jing Wu
Gang Chen
Publicatiedatum
25-05-2022
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03159-2

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2022

Quality of Life Research 9/2022 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Heterogeneity in preferences for outcomes of integrated care for persons with multiple chronic diseases: a latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment

OriginalPaper

Examining subjective well-being among older adults using pain medications

Review

Quality of mobility measures among individuals with acquired brain injury: an umbrella review

OriginalPaper

Item selection, scaling and construct validation of the Patient-Reported Inventory of Self-Management of Chronic Conditions (PRISM-CC) measurement tool in adults

OriginalPaper

Understanding factors that affect wellbeing in trans people “later” in transition: a qualitative study

OriginalPaper

Psychometric validity and reliability of the 10- and 2-item Connor–Davidson resilience scales among a national sample of Americans responding to the Covid-19 pandemic: an item response theory analysis