Literature DB >> 30098674

Test-Retest Reliability of Discrete Choice Experiment for Valuations of QLU-C10D Health States.

Eva-Maria Gamper1, Bernhard Holzner2, Madeleine T King3, Richard Norman4, Rosalie Viney5, Virginie Nerich6, Georg Kemmler2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recently, a newly developed cancer-specific multiattribute utility instrument based on the widely used health-related quality of life instrument, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, was introduced: the QLU-C10D. For the elicitation of utility weights, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed. Our aim was to investigate the DCE in terms of individual choice consistency and utility estimate consistency by applying a test-retest design.
METHODS: We conducted the study in general population samples in Germany and France. The DCE was administered via a web-based self-complete survey using online panels. Respondents were presented 16 choice sets comprising 11 attributes with 4 levels each. Retest was conducted 4 to 6 weeks after first assessment. We used kappa and percentage agreement as measures of choice consistency and both intraclass correlations and mean utility differences as measures of utility estimate consistency.
RESULTS: A total of 300 German respondents (31% female, mean age 48 years [SD 14]) and 305 French respondents (46% female, mean age 47 years [SD 16]) completed test and retest assessments. Individual choice consistency was moderate to high (Germany: κ = 0.605, percentage agreement = 80.2%; France: κ = 0.411, percentage agreement = 70.6%). Utility estimate consistency was high when considering intraclass correlations (all >0.79). Mean utility differences were 0.08 in the German sample and 0.05 in the French sample.
CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the designed DCE elicits stable health state preferences rather than guesses or mood-specific or condition-specific judgments. Nevertheless, the identified mean utility differences between test and retest need to be taken into account when determining minimal important differences for the QLU-C10D in future research.
Copyright © 2018 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  QLU-C10D; choice consistency; health state valuation; test-retest; utilities

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30098674     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.11.012

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


  5 in total

1.  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

2.  EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland.

Authors:  E M Gamper; M T King; R Norman; F Efficace; F Cottone; B Holzner; G Kemmler
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Patterns of SARS-CoV-2 testing preferences in a national cohort in the United States.

Authors:  Matthew L Romo; Rebecca Zimba; Sarah Kulkarni; Amanda Berry; William You; Chloe Mirzayi; Drew Westmoreland; Angela M Parcesepe; Levi Waldron; Madhura Rane; Shivani Kochhar; McKaylee Robertson; Andrew R Maroko; Christian Grov; Denis Nash
Journal:  medRxiv       Date:  2020-12-24

4.  Patterns of SARS-CoV-2 Testing Preferences in a National Cohort in the United States: Latent Class Analysis of a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Rebecca Zimba; Matthew L Romo; Sarah G Kulkarni; Amanda Berry; William You; Chloe Mirzayi; Drew A Westmoreland; Angela M Parcesepe; Levi Waldron; Madhura S Rane; Shivani Kochhar; McKaylee M Robertson; Andrew R Maroko; Christian Grov; Denis Nash
Journal:  JMIR Public Health Surveill       Date:  2021-12-30

5.  Longitudinal Analysis of Quality-of-Life Recovery After Gastrectomy for Cancer.

Authors:  Yinin Hu; Elvira L Vos; Raymond E Baser; Mark A Schattner; Makoto Nishimura; Daniel G Coit; Vivian E Strong
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 5.344

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.