Literature DB >> 23765787

An Australian discrete choice experiment to value eq-5d health states.

Rosalie Viney1, Richard Norman, John Brazier, Paula Cronin, Madeleine T King, Julie Ratcliffe, Deborah Street.   

Abstract

Conventionally, generic quality-of-life health states, defined within multi-attribute utility instruments, have been valued using a Standard Gamble or a Time Trade-Off. Both are grounded in expected utility theory but impose strong assumptions about the form of the utility function. Preference elicitation tasks for both are complicated, limiting the number of health states that each respondent can value and, therefore, that can be valued overall. The usual approach has been to value a set of the possible health states and impute values for the remainder. Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) offer an attractive alternative, allowing investigation of more flexible specifications of the utility function and greater coverage of the response surface. We designed a DCE to obtain values for EQ-5D health states and implemented it in an Australia-representative online panel (n = 1,031). A range of specifications investigating non-linear preferences with respect to time and interactions between EQ-5D levels were estimated using a random-effects probit model. The results provide empirical support for a flexible utility function, including at least some two-factor interactions. We then constructed a preference index such that full health and death were valued at 1 and 0, respectively, to provide a DCE-based algorithm for Australian cost-utility analyses.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Australia; Discrete Choice Experiment; EQ-5D; cost-utility analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23765787     DOI: 10.1002/hec.2953

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


  34 in total

1.  Better outcomes for hospitalized patients with TIA when in stroke units: An observational study.

Authors:  Dominique A Cadilhac; Joosup Kim; Natasha A Lannin; Christopher R Levi; Helen M Dewey; Kelvin Hill; Steven Faux; Nadine E Andrew; Monique F Kilkenny; Rohan Grimley; Amanda G Thrift; Brenda Grabsch; Sandy Middleton; Craig S Anderson; Geoffrey A Donnan
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 9.910

2.  Does Device or Connection Type Affect Health Preferences in Online Surveys?

Authors:  John D Hartman; Benjamin M Craig
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 3.883

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.  The better than dead method: feasibility and interpretation of a valuation study.

Authors:  R A van Hoorn; A R T Donders; M Oppe; P F M Stalmeier
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  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

6.  Comparing and transforming PROMIS utility values to the EQ-5D.

Authors:  John D Hartman; Benjamin M Craig
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Bryce B Reeve; Paul M Brown; David Cella; Ron D Hays; Joseph Lipscomb; A Simon Pickard; Dennis A Revicki
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 5.725

8.  QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30.

Authors:  M T King; D S J Costa; N K Aaronson; J E Brazier; D F Cella; P M Fayers; P Grimison; M Janda; G Kemmler; R Norman; A S Pickard; D Rowen; G Velikova; T A Young; R Viney
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 4.147

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

Review 10.  A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models.

Authors:  John Brazier; Roberta Ara; Donna Rowen; Helene Chevrou-Severac
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.