Seon-Ha Kim1, Sang-Il Lee2, Min-Woo Jo3. 1. Department of Nursing, Dankook University, 119 Dandae-ro, Cheonan, Chungnam, 31116, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. mdjominwoo@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The standard gamble (SG) method is the gold standard for valuing health states as a utility, although it is accepted that it is difficult to valuate health states. This study was conducted in order to compare the SG with the rating scale (RS) and time trade-off (TTO) techniques in terms of their feasibility, comparability, and reliability in a valuation survey of the general Korean population. METHODS: Five-hundred members of the general Korean population were recruited using a multi-stage quota sampling method in Seoul and its surrounding areas, Korea. Respondents evaluated 9 EQ-5D-5L health states using a visual analogue scale (VAS), SG, and TTO during a personal interview. Feasibility was assessed in aspects of the level of difficulty, administration time, and inconsistent responses. Comparability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman approach. Test-retest reliability was analyzed using the ICC. RESULTS: Of the three methods, VAS was the easiest and quickest method to respond. The SG method did not differ significantly compared to the TTO method in administration time as well as the level of difficulty. The SG and TTO values were highly correlated (r = 0.992), and the average mean difference between the SG and the TTO values was 0.034. The ICCs of the VAS, SG, and TTO scores were 0.906, 0.841, and 0.827, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the SG method compared with the VAS and TTO method was feasible and offered a reliable tool for population-based, health state valuation studies in Korea.
PURPOSE: The standard gamble (SG) method is the gold standard for valuing health states as a utility, although it is accepted that it is difficult to valuate health states. This study was conducted in order to compare the SG with the rating scale (RS) and time trade-off (TTO) techniques in terms of their feasibility, comparability, and reliability in a valuation survey of the general Korean population. METHODS: Five-hundred members of the general Korean population were recruited using a multi-stage quota sampling method in Seoul and its surrounding areas, Korea. Respondents evaluated 9 EQ-5D-5L health states using a visual analogue scale (VAS), SG, and TTO during a personal interview. Feasibility was assessed in aspects of the level of difficulty, administration time, and inconsistent responses. Comparability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman approach. Test-retest reliability was analyzed using the ICC. RESULTS: Of the three methods, VAS was the easiest and quickest method to respond. The SG method did not differ significantly compared to the TTO method in administration time as well as the level of difficulty. The SG and TTO values were highly correlated (r = 0.992), and the average mean difference between the SG and the TTO values was 0.034. The ICCs of the VAS, SG, and TTO scores were 0.906, 0.841, and 0.827, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the SG method compared with the VAS and TTO method was feasible and offered a reliable tool for population-based, health state valuation studies in Korea.
Keywords:
Comparability; Quality of life; Reliability; Social values; Standard gamble; Time trade-off
Authors: A G Witney; G J Treharne; M Tavakoli; A C Lyons; K Vincent; D L Scott; G D Kitas Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2006-02-03 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Daniel S J Costa; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Claudia Rutherford; Margaret-Ann Tait; Madeleine T King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Adam B Smith; Andria Hanbury; Igor Beitia Ortiz de Zarate; Florence Hammes; Gerard de Pouvourville; Katharina Buesch Journal: Patient Relat Outcome Meas Date: 2021-07-12