Literature DB >> 22025393

Non-monotonicity in the episodic random utility model.

Nicolas A Menzies1, Joshua A Salomon.   

Abstract

The time trade-off (TTO) is widely used in population-based surveys to estimate health-state valuations. Typically, respondents may characterize states as being better than or worse than dead. However, worse-than-dead responses can produce strongly negative mean values, so various analytic transformations of these responses have been suggested. The episodic random utility model (eRUM), operationalized using a linear regression estimator, was proposed as an alternative to these transformations, in part because of its theoretical appeal. We analyzed the eRUM estimator's mathematical properties and found that it violates monotonicity under certain patterns of survey responses, such that improvement in some individual valuations would imply a lower overall valuation for a given health state. Consequently, it is possible that orderings of alternative strategies based on eRUM valuations could lead a decision-maker to choose a strictly dominated strategy. Re-analyzing data from a large population-based EQ-5D valuation survey in the United Kingdom, we found 27% of all TTO responses (63% of all worse-than-dead responses) met the conditions for violation of monotonicity, and 74% of all respondents had at least one such response. These results present some challenge to the use of the eRUM estimator in generating health-state valuations for population health measurement and economic evaluation.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 22025393      PMCID: PMC3289720          DOI: 10.1002/hec.1683

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  23 in total

1.  To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents?

Authors:  Paul Dolan; Jennifer Roberts
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan.

Authors:  Aki Tsuchiya; Shunya Ikeda; Naoki Ikegami; Shuzo Nishimura; Ikuro Sakai; Takashi Fukuda; Chisato Hamashima; Akinori Hisashige; Makoto Tamura
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  The gap effect: discontinuities of preferences around dead.

Authors:  Peep F M Stalmeier; Jan J V Busschbach; Leida M Lamers; Paul F M Krabbe
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model.

Authors:  James W Shaw; Jeffrey A Johnson; Stephen Joel Coons
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  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

6.  Quantification of health states with rank-based nonmetric multidimensional scaling.

Authors:  Paul F M Krabbe; Joshua A Salomon; Christopher J L Murray
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  A median model for predicting United States population-based EQ-5D health state preferences.

Authors:  James W Shaw; A Simon Pickard; Shengsheng Yu; Shijie Chen; Vincent G Iannacchione; Jeffrey A Johnson; Stephen Joel Coons
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 5.725

8.  A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the 'lead time' approach.

Authors:  Nancy J Devlin; Aki Tsuchiya; Ken Buckingham; Carl Tilling
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.046

9.  The effect of sophistication on ratio- and discriminative scales.

Authors:  R K Eyman
Journal:  Am J Psychol       Date:  1967-12

10.  Keep it simple: ranking health states yields values similar to cardinal measurement approaches.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Jan J V Busschbach; Joshua A Salomon
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-10-21       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  2 in total

1.  US valuation of the SF-6D.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; A Simon Pickard; Elly Stolk; John E Brazier
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Unchained melody: revisiting the estimation of SF-6D values.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-09-10
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.