Literature DB >> 20568837

Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values: issues to consider.

Terry N Flynn1.   

Abstract

There is increasing interest in using ranking tasks, discrete choice experiments and best-worst scaling studies to estimate QALY values for use in cost-utility analysis. The research frontier in choice modelling is moving rapidly, with a number of issues being explored across several disciplines. These issues include the estimation of discount factors, proper modelling of the variance scale factor and the estimation of individual-level utility functions. Some of these issues are particularly acute when discrete choice tasks are used to facilitate extra-welfarist analyses that rely on population-based values. There are also potential problems in implementing such tasks that have received little interest in the non-health discrete choice literature because they are specific to the QALY framework. This article details these issues and offers recommendations on the conduct of 21st century QALY valuation exercises that propose to use any tasks that rely on discrete choices.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20568837     DOI: 10.2165/11535660-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  13 in total

Review 1.  Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable?--A systematic review of TTO methodologies.

Authors:  Trude Arnesen; Mari Trommald
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters.

Authors:  Terry Nicholas Flynn; Jordan J Louviere; Tim J Peters; Joanna Coast
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2010-03-23       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--an application to social care for older people.

Authors:  Mandy Ryan; Ann Netten; Diane Skåtun; Paul Smith
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2006-02-07       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Using rank data to estimate health state utility models.

Authors:  Christopher McCabe; John Brazier; Peter Gilks; Aki Tsuchiya; Jennifer Roberts; Anthony O'Hagan; Katherine Stevens
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2006-02-24       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  The correction of TTO-scores for utility curvature using a risk-free utility elicitation method.

Authors:  Arthur E Attema; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Developing methods that really do value the 'Q' in the QALY.

Authors:  Paul Dolan
Journal:  Health Econ Policy Law       Date:  2008-01

7.  Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people.

Authors:  Joanna Coast; Terry N Flynn; Lucy Natarajan; Kerry Sproston; Jane Lewis; Jordan J Louviere; Tim J Peters
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2008-06-21       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Best--worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it.

Authors:  Terry N Flynn; Jordan J Louviere; Tim J Peters; Joanna Coast
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2006-05-16       Impact factor: 3.883

10.  Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data.

Authors:  Joshua A Salomon
Journal:  Popul Health Metr       Date:  2003-12-19
View more
  20 in total

1.  Health utility elicitation: is there still a role for direct methods?

Authors:  Lisa A Prosser; Scott D Grosse; Eve Wittenberg
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Time trade-off and attitudes toward euthanasia: implications of using 'death' as an anchor in health state valuation.

Authors:  Liv A Augestad; Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Knut Stavem; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Critical limb ischemia and its impact on patient health preferences and quality of life-an international study.

Authors:  Giovanni Pisa; Thomas Reinhold; Eliot Obi-Tabot; Maria Bodoria; Bernd Brüggenjürgen
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2012-09

4.  Measuring Acceptability and Preferences for Implementation of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Using Conjoint Analysis: An Application to Primary HIV Prevention Among High Risk Drug Users.

Authors:  Roman Shrestha; Pramila Karki; Frederick L Altice; Oleksandr Dubov; Liana Fraenkel; Tania Huedo-Medina; Michael Copenhaver
Journal:  AIDS Behav       Date:  2018-04

5.  Challenges in health state valuation in paediatric economic evaluation: are QALYs contraindicated?

Authors:  Wendy J Ungar
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Evaluating alcoholics anonymous sponsor attributes using conjoint analysis.

Authors:  Edward B Stevens; Leonard A Jason
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.913

7.  Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation: an application of profile case best-worst scaling to the Child Health Utility 9D.

Authors:  Julie Ratcliffe; Terry Flynn; Frances Terlich; Katherine Stevens; John Brazier; Michael Sawyer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Preferences for a third-trimester ultrasound scan in a low-risk obstetric population: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Fiona A Lynn; Grainne E Crealey; Fiona A Alderdice; James C McElnay
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 3.377

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

Authors:  Richard Norman; Brendan Mulhern; Rosalie Viney
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Scoring the Child Health Utility 9D instrument: estimation of a Chinese child and adolescent-specific tariff.

Authors:  Gang Chen; Fei Xu; Elisabeth Huynh; Zhiyong Wang; Katherine Stevens; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.