Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values: Issues to Consider

Overview

Journal Pharmacoeconomics

Specialty Pharmacology

Date 2010 Jun 24

PMID 20568837

Citations 20

Authors

Terry N Flynn

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

There is increasing interest in using ranking tasks, discrete choice experiments and best-worst scaling studies to estimate QALY values for use in cost-utility analysis. The research frontier in choice modelling is moving rapidly, with a number of issues being explored across several disciplines. These issues include the estimation of discount factors, proper modelling of the variance scale factor and the estimation of individual-level utility functions. Some of these issues are particularly acute when discrete choice tasks are used to facilitate extra-welfarist analyses that rely on population-based values. There are also potential problems in implementing such tasks that have received little interest in the non-health discrete choice literature because they are specific to the QALY framework. This article details these issues and offers recommendations on the conduct of 21st century QALY valuation exercises that propose to use any tasks that rely on discrete choices.

Citing Articles

Not all respondents use a multiplicative utility function in choice experiments for health state valuations, which should be reflected in the elicitation format (or statistical analysis).

Jonker M, Norman R Health Econ. 2021; 31(2):431-439.

PMID: 34841637 PMC: 9298783. DOI: 10.1002/hec.4457.

Transforming discrete choice experiment latent scale values for EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale.

Webb E, ODwyer J, Meads D, Kind P, Wright P Eur J Health Econ. 2020; 21(5):787-800.

PMID: 32180068 PMC: 7366608. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01173-0.

Scoring the Child Health Utility 9D instrument: estimation of a Chinese child and adolescent-specific tariff.

Chen G, Xu F, Huynh E, Wang Z, Stevens K, Ratcliffe J Qual Life Res. 2018; 28(1):163-176.

PMID: 30374777 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-2032-z.

Measuring Acceptability and Preferences for Implementation of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Using Conjoint Analysis: An Application to Primary HIV Prevention Among High Risk Drug Users.

Shrestha R, Karki P, Altice F, Dubov O, Fraenkel L, Huedo-Medina T AIDS Behav. 2017; 22(4):1228-1238.

PMID: 28695388 PMC: 5762432. DOI: 10.1007/s10461-017-1851-1.

The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores.

Norman R, Mulhern B, Viney R Pharmacoeconomics. 2016; 34(8):805-14.

PMID: 27034244 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0399-7.

References

Richardson J . Cost utility analysis: what should be measured?. Soc Sci Med. 1994; 39(1):7-21. DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90162-7. View

Attema A, Brouwer W . The correction of TTO-scores for utility curvature using a risk-free utility elicitation method. J Health Econ. 2008; 28(1):234-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.10.004. View

Bleichrodt H . A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ. 2002; 11(5):447-56. DOI: 10.1002/hec.688. View

Flynn T, Louviere J, Peters T, Coast J . Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters. Soc Sci Med. 2010; 70(12):1957-1965. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.008. View

Coast J, Flynn T, Natarajan L, Sproston K, Lewis J, Louviere J . Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 67(5):874-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.015. View

McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, Tsuchiya A, Roberts J, OHagan A . Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J Health Econ. 2006; 25(3):418-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.07.008. View

Lancsar E, Louviere J . Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26(8):661-77. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004. View

Arnesen T, Trommald M . Are QALYs based on time trade-off comparable?--A systematic review of TTO methodologies. Health Econ. 2004; 14(1):39-53. DOI: 10.1002/hec.895. View

Flynn T, Louviere J, Marley A, Coast J, Peters T . Rescaling quality of life values from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: a cautionary tale. Popul Health Metr. 2008; 6:6. PMC: 2599891. DOI: 10.1186/1478-7954-6-6. View

10.

Salomon J . Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul Health Metr. 2003; 1(1):12. PMC: 344742. DOI: 10.1186/1478-7954-1-12. View

11.

Dolan P . Developing methods that really do value the 'Q' in the QALY. Health Econ Policy Law. 2008; 3(Pt 1):69-77. DOI: 10.1017/S1744133107004355. View

12.

Flynn T, Louviere J, Peters T, Coast J . Best--worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2006; 26(1):171-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.04.002. View

13.

Ryan M, Netten A, Skatun D, Smith P . Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--an application to social care for older people. J Health Econ. 2006; 25(5):927-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.01.001. View