Amanda Cole1, Koonal Shah2, Brendan Mulhern3, Yan Feng1, Nancy Devlin1. 1. Office of Health Economics, Southside 7th Floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK. 2. Office of Health Economics, Southside 7th Floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK. kshah@ohe.org. 3. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, 1-59 Quay St, Haymarket, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In health state valuation studies, health states are typically presented as a series of sentences, each describing a health dimension and severity 'level'. Differences in the severity levels can be subtle, and confusion about which is 'worse' can lead to logically inconsistent valuation data. A solution could be to mimic the way patients self-report health, where the ordinal structure of levels is clear. We develop and test the feasibility of presenting EQ-5D-5L health states in the 'context' of the entire EQ-5D-5L descriptive system. METHODS: An online two-arm discrete choice experiment was conducted in the UK (n = 993). Respondents were randomly allocated to a control (standard presentation) or 'context' arm. Each respondent completed 16 paired comparison tasks and feedback questions about the tasks. Differences across arms were assessed using regression analyses. RESULTS: Presenting health states 'in context' can significantly reduce the selection of logically dominated health states, particularly for labels 'severe' and 'extreme' (χ2 = 46.02, p < 0.001). Preferences differ significantly between arms (likelihood ratio statistic = 42.00, p < 0.05). Comparing conditional logit modeling results, coefficients are ordered as expected for both arms, but the magnitude of decrements between levels is larger for the context arm. CONCLUSIONS: Health state presentation is a key consideration in the design of valuation studies. Presenting health states 'in context' affects valuation data and reduces logical inconsistencies. Our results could have implications for other valuation tasks such as time trade-off, and for the valuation of other preference-based measures.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In health state valuation studies, health states are typically presented as a series of sentences, each describing a health dimension and severity 'level'. Differences in the severity levels can be subtle, and confusion about which is 'worse' can lead to logically inconsistent valuation data. A solution could be to mimic the way patients self-report health, where the ordinal structure of levels is clear. We develop and test the feasibility of presenting EQ-5D-5L health states in the 'context' of the entire EQ-5D-5L descriptive system. METHODS: An online two-arm discrete choice experiment was conducted in the UK (n = 993). Respondents were randomly allocated to a control (standard presentation) or 'context' arm. Each respondent completed 16 paired comparison tasks and feedback questions about the tasks. Differences across arms were assessed using regression analyses. RESULTS: Presenting health states 'in context' can significantly reduce the selection of logically dominated health states, particularly for labels 'severe' and 'extreme' (χ2 = 46.02, p < 0.001). Preferences differ significantly between arms (likelihood ratio statistic = 42.00, p < 0.05). Comparing conditional logit modeling results, coefficients are ordered as expected for both arms, but the magnitude of decrements between levels is larger for the context arm. CONCLUSIONS: Health state presentation is a key consideration in the design of valuation studies. Presenting health states 'in context' affects valuation data and reduces logical inconsistencies. Our results could have implications for other valuation tasks such as time trade-off, and for the valuation of other preference-based measures.
Authors: Richard Norman; Madeleine T King; Dushyant Clarke; Rosalie Viney; Paula Cronin; Deborah Street Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-22 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Brendan Mulhern; Nick Bansback; John Brazier; Ken Buckingham; John Cairns; Nancy Devlin; Paul Dolan; Arne Risa Hole; Georgios Kavetsos; Louise Longworth; Donna Rowen; Aki Tsuchiya Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Paul F M Krabbe; Nancy J Devlin; Elly A Stolk; Koonal K Shah; Mark Oppe; Ben van Hout; Elise H Quik; A Simon Pickard; Feng Xie Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Daphne C Voormolen; Suzanne Polinder; Nicole von Steinbuechel; Yan Feng; Lindsay Wilson; Mark Oppe; Juanita A Haagsma Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 4.147