Literature DB >> 25398621

A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale.

Donna Rowen1, John Brazier1, Ben Van Hout1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preference elicitation techniques such as time trade-off (TTO) and standard gamble (SG) receive criticism for their complexity and difficulties of use. Ordinal techniques such as discrete choice experiment (DCE) are arguably easier to understand but generate values that are not anchored onto the full health-dead 1-0 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) scale required for use in economic evaluation.
METHODS: This article compares existing methods for converting modeled DCE latent values onto the full health-dead QALY scale: 1) anchoring DCE values using dead as valued in the DCE and 2) anchoring DCE values using TTO value for worst state to 2 new methods: 3) mapping DCE values onto TTO and 4) combining DCE and TTO data in a hybrid model. Models are compared using their ability to predict mean TTO health state values. DATA: We use postal DCE data (n = 263) and TTO data (n = 307) collected by interview in a general population valuation study of an asthma condition-specific measure (AQL-5D).
RESULTS: New methods 3 and 4 using mapping and hybrid models are better able to predict mean TTO health state values (mean absolute difference [MAD], 0.052-0.084) than the anchor-based methods (MAD, 0.075-0.093) and were better able to predict mean TTO health state values even when using in their estimation a subsample of the available TTO data.
CONCLUSIONS: These new mapping and hybrid methods have a potentially useful role for producing values on the QALY scale from data elicited using ordinal techniques such as DCE for use in economic evaluation that makes best use of the desirable properties of each elicitation technique and elicited data. Further research is encouraged.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  discrete choice experiment; health-related quality of life; pairwise comparisons; preference-based measures of health

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25398621     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14559542

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  33 in total

1.  EQ-5D-5L Valuation for the Malaysian Population.

Authors:  Asrul Akmal Shafie; Annushiah Vasan Thakumar; Ching Jou Lim; Nan Luo; Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Faridah Aryani Md Yusof
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  A tale of two countries: comparing disability weights for gambling problems in New Zealand and Australia.

Authors:  Vijay Rawat; Matthew Browne; Maria Bellringer; Nancy Greer; Komathi Kolandai-Matchett; Matthew Rockloff; Erika Langham; Christine Hanley; Katie Palmer Du Preez; Max Abbott
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Measuring and valuing quality of life for public health research: application of the ICECAP-O capability index in the Australian general population.

Authors:  L Couzner; J Ratcliffe; L Lester; T Flynn; M Crotty
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2012-09-08       Impact factor: 3.380

4.  A hybrid modelling approach for eliciting health state preferences: the Portuguese EQ-5D-5L value set.

Authors:  Pedro L Ferreira; Patrícia Antunes; Lara N Ferreira; Luís N Pereira; Juan M Ramos-Goñi
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Does one size fit all? Assessing the preferences of older and younger people for attributes of quality of life.

Authors:  Julie Ratcliffe; Emily Lancsar; Thomas Flint; Billingsley Kaambwa; Ruth Walker; Gill Lewin; Mary Luszcz; Ian D Cameron
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Feasibility, Validity and Differences in Adolescent and Adult EQ-5D-Y Health State Valuation in Australia and Spain: An Application of Best-Worst Scaling.

Authors:  Kim Dalziel; Max Catchpool; Borja García-Lorenzo; Inigo Gorostiza; Richard Norman; Oliver Rivero-Arias
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  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

8.  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

Review 9.  Review of Valuation Methods of Preference-Based Measures of Health for Economic Evaluation in Child and Adolescent Populations: Where are We Now and Where are We Going?

Authors:  Donna Rowen; Oliver Rivero-Arias; Nancy Devlin; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods.

Authors:  Mina Bahrampour; Joshua Byrnes; Richard Norman; Paul A Scuffham; Martin Downes
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2020-05-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.