Literature DB >> 25773557

Learning and satisficing: an analysis of sequence effects in health valuation.

Benjamin M Craig1, Shannon K Runge2, Kim Rand-Hendriksen3, Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi4, Mark Oppe5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of sequence on response precision and response behavior in health valuation studies.
METHODS: Time trade-off (TTO) and paired comparison responses from six health valuation studies-four US, one Spanish, and one Dutch-were examined (22,225 respondents) to test whether task sequence influences response precision (e.g., rounding), response changes, and median response times. Each study used a computer-based instrument that randomized task sequence among a national sample of adults, age 18 years or older, from the general population.
RESULTS: For both TTO and paired comparisons, median response times decreased with sequence (i.e., learning), but tended to flatten after the first three tasks. Although the paired comparison evidence demonstrated that sequence had no effect on response precision, the frequency of rounded TTO responses (to either 1-year or 5-year units) increased with sequence.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, randomizing or reducing the number of paired comparison tasks does not appear to influence response precision; however, generalizability, practicality, and precautionary considerations remain. Overall, participants learned to respond efficiently within the first three tasks and did not resort to satisficing, but may have rounded their TTO responses.
Copyright © 2015 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  QALY; health valuation; paradata; preferences; response precision; sequence effects; time trade-off

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25773557      PMCID: PMC4361790          DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.11.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  9 in total

1.  Response-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis.

Authors:  S Farrar; M Ryan
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  An experimental test of question framing in health state utility assessment.

Authors:  K Blumenschein; M Johannesson
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.980

3.  Learning effects in time trade-off based valuation of EQ-5D health states.

Authors:  Liv Ariane Augestad; Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen; Knut Stavem
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry?

Authors:  Trine Kjaer; Mickael Bech; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Kristian Hart-Hansen
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Sulabha Ramachandran
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  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

7.  A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs.

Authors:  G W Torrance; W H Thomas; D L Sackett
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1972       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Kirsten Howard; Glenn Salkeld
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2008-07-24       Impact factor: 5.725

9.  Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity.

Authors:  Bas M F Janssen; Mark Oppe; Matthijs M Versteegh; Elly A Stolk
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-07
  9 in total
  7 in total

1.  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

2.  Health Preference Research: An Overview.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Emily Lancsar; Axel C Mühlbacher; Derek S Brown; Jan Ostermann
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  The Value Adults Place on Child Health and Functional Status.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Derek S Brown; Bryce B Reeve
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  Valuation of Child Behavioral Problems from the Perspective of US Adults.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; Derek S Brown; Bryce B Reeve
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-07-24       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Eye tracking to explore attendance in health-state descriptions.

Authors:  Anna Selivanova; Paul F M Krabbe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Paradata analyses to inform population-based survey capture of pregnancy outcomes: EN-INDEPTH study.

Authors:  Joy E Lawn; Hannah Blencowe; Vladimir Sergeevich Gordeev; Joseph Akuze; Angela Baschieri; Sanne M Thysen; Francis Dzabeng; M Moinuddin Haider; Melanie Smuk; Michael Wild; Michael M Lokshin; Temesgen Azemeraw Yitayew; Solomon Mokonnen Abebe; Davis Natukwatsa; Collins Gyezaho; Seeba Amenga-Etego
Journal:  Popul Health Metr       Date:  2021-02-08

7.  Public Preferences and Predicted Uptake for Esophageal Cancer Screening Strategies: A Labeled Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Yonne Peters; Peter D Siersema
Journal:  Clin Transl Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 4.396

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.