Mina Bahrampour1, Joshua Byrnes2, Richard Norman3, Paul A Scuffham2, Martin Downes2. 1. Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia. mina.bahrampour@griffithuni.edu.au. 2. Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine and Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia. 3. School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In recent years, discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have become frequently used to generate utility values, but there are a diverse range of approaches to do this. The primary focus of this systematic review is to summarise the methods used for the design and analysis of DCEs when estimating utility values in both generic and condition-specific preference-based measures. METHODS: Published literature using DCEs to estimate utility values from preference-based instruments were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL using PRISMA guidelines. To assess the different DCE methods, standardised information was extracted from the articles including the DCE design method, the number of choice sets, the number of DCE pairs per person, randomisation of questions, analysis method, logical consistency tests and techniques for anchoring utilities. The CREATE checklist was used to assess the quality of the studies. RESULTS: A total of 38 studies with samples from the general population, students and patients were included. Values for health states described using generic multi attribute instruments (MAUIs) (especially the EQ-5D) were the most commonly explored using DCEs. The studies showed considerable methodology and design diversity (number of alternatives, attributes, sample size, choice task presentation and analysis). Despite these differences, the quality of articles reporting the methods used for the DCE was generally high. CONCLUSION: DCEs are an important approach to measure utility values for both generic and condition-specific instruments. However, a gold standard method cannot yet be recommended.
OBJECTIVES: In recent years, discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have become frequently used to generate utility values, but there are a diverse range of approaches to do this. The primary focus of this systematic review is to summarise the methods used for the design and analysis of DCEs when estimating utility values in both generic and condition-specific preference-based measures. METHODS: Published literature using DCEs to estimate utility values from preference-based instruments were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL using PRISMA guidelines. To assess the different DCE methods, standardised information was extracted from the articles including the DCE design method, the number of choice sets, the number of DCE pairs per person, randomisation of questions, analysis method, logical consistency tests and techniques for anchoring utilities. The CREATE checklist was used to assess the quality of the studies. RESULTS: A total of 38 studies with samples from the general population, students and patients were included. Values for health states described using generic multi attribute instruments (MAUIs) (especially the EQ-5D) were the most commonly explored using DCEs. The studies showed considerable methodology and design diversity (number of alternatives, attributes, sample size, choice task presentation and analysis). Despite these differences, the quality of articles reporting the methods used for the DCE was generally high. CONCLUSION: DCEs are an important approach to measure utility values for both generic and condition-specific instruments. However, a gold standard method cannot yet be recommended.
Entities:
Keywords:
Conjoint analysis; Discrete choice experiment; Health state valuation; Preference-based measures; Systematic review; Utility
Authors: Christopher McCabe; John Brazier; Peter Gilks; Aki Tsuchiya; Jennifer Roberts; Anthony O'Hagan; Katherine Stevens Journal: J Health Econ Date: 2006-02-24 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Sanjeewa Kularatna; Jennifer A Whitty; Newell W Johnson; Ruwan Jayasinghe; Paul A Scuffham Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 3.186
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: Timea Mariann Helter; Alexander Kaltenboeck; Josef Baumgartner; Franz Mayrhofer; Georg Heinze; Andreas Sönnichsen; Johannes Wancata; Judit Simon Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Roberto Aringhieri; Patrick Hirsch; Marion S Rauner; Melanie Reuter-Oppermanns; Margit Sommersguter-Reichmann Journal: Cent Eur J Oper Res Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: F C W van Krugten; J J V Busschbach; M M Versteegh; L Hakkaart-van Roijen; W B F Brouwer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 4.147