Literature DB >> 23649892

A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states.

Richard Norman1, Paula Cronin, Rosalie Viney.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The EQ-5D-5L has recently been developed to improve the sensitivity of the widely used three-level version. Valuation studies are required before the use of this new instrument can be adopted. The use of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) in this area is a promising area of research.
PURPOSE: To test the plausibility and acceptability of estimating an Australian algorithm for the newly developed five-level version of the EQ-5D using a DCE.
METHODS: A choice experiment was designed, consisting of 200 choice sets blocked such that each respondent answered 10 choice sets. Each choice set presented two health state-duration combinations, and an immediate death option. The experiment was implemented in an online Australian-representative sample. A random-effects probit model was estimated. To explore the feasibility of the approach, an indicative algorithm was developed. The algorithm is transformed to a 0 to 1 scale suitable for use to estimate quality-adjusted life-year weights for use in economic evaluation.
RESULTS: A total of 973 respondents undertook the choice experiment. Respondents were slightly younger and better educated than the general Australian population. Of the 973 respondents, 932 (95.8 %) completed all ten choice sets, and a further 12 completed some of the choice sets. In choice sets in which one health state-duration combination dominated another, the dominant option was selected on 89.5 % of occasions. The mean and median completion times were 17.9 and 9.4 min, respectively, exhibiting a highly skewed distribution. The estimation results are broadly consistent with the monotonic nature of the EQ-5D-5L. Utility is increasing in life expectancy (i.e., respondents tend to prefer health profiles with longer life expectancy), and mainly decreases in higher levels in each dimension of the instrument. A high proportion of respondents found the task clear and relatively easy to complete.
CONCLUSIONS: DCEs are a feasible approach to the estimation of utility weights for more complex multi-attribute utility instruments such as the EQ-5D-5L.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23649892     DOI: 10.1007/s40258-013-0035-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy        ISSN: 1175-5652            Impact factor:   2.561


  49 in total

1.  Health-Related Quality of Life Associated with Barrett's Esophagus and Cancer.

Authors:  Norma B Bulamu; Gang Chen; Julie Ratcliffe; Ann Schloite; Tim Bright; David I Watson
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Framing of mobility items: a source of poor agreement between preference-based health-related quality of life instruments in a population of individuals receiving assisted ventilation.

Authors:  Liam M Hannan; David G T Whitehurst; Stirling Bryan; Jeremy D Road; Christine F McDonald; David J Berlowitz; Mark E Howard
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Is Dimension Order Important when Valuing Health States Using Discrete Choice Experiments Including Duration?

Authors:  Brendan Mulhern; Richard Norman; Paula Lorgelly; Emily Lancsar; Julie Ratcliffe; John Brazier; Rosalie Viney
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Valuing EQ-5D-5L health states 'in context' using a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Amanda Cole; Koonal Shah; Brendan Mulhern; Yan Feng; Nancy Devlin
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-05-31

5.  The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea.

Authors:  Seon-Ha Kim; Jeonghoon Ahn; Minsu Ock; Sangjin Shin; Jooyeon Park; Nan Luo; Min-Woo Jo
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Utility Values for the CP-6D, a Cerebral Palsy-Specific Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument, Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Mina Bahrampour; Richard Norman; Joshua Byrnes; Martin Downes; Paul A Scuffham
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Discrepancies between proxy estimates and patient reported, health related, quality of life: minding the gap between patient and clinician perceptions in heart failure.

Authors:  Roslyn A Prichard; Fei-Li Zhao; Julee Mcdonagh; Stephen Goodall; Patricia M Davidson; Phillip J Newton; Ben Farr-Wharton; Christopher S Hayward
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Using Eye-Tracking Technology with Older People in Memory Clinics to Investigate the Impact of Mild Cognitive Impairment on Choices for EQ-5D-5L Health States Preferences.

Authors:  Kaiying Wang; Chris Barr; Richard Norman; Stacey George; Craig Whitehead; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.561

9.  Patient-reported outcomes in cancer survivors: a population-wide cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Michael Jefford; Andrew C Ward; Karolina Lisy; Karen Lacey; Jon D Emery; Adam W Glaser; Hannah Cross; Mei Krishnasamy; Sue-Anne McLachlan; Jim Bishop
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-04-22       Impact factor: 3.603

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.