» Articles » PMID: 25100229

Multinational Evidence of the Applicability and Robustness of Discrete Choice Modeling for Deriving EQ-5D-5L Health-state Values

Overview
Journal Med Care
Specialty Health Services
Date 2014 Aug 8
PMID 25100229
Citations 24
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aims: To investigate the feasibility of discrete choice experiments for valuing EQ-5D-5L states using computer-based data collection, the consistency of the estimated regression coefficients produced after modeling the preference data, and to examine the similarity of the values derived across countries.

Methods: Data were collected in Canada, England, The Netherlands, and the United States (US). Interactive software was developed to standardize the format of the choice tasks across countries, except for face-to-face interviewing in England. The choice task required respondents to choose between 2 suboptimal health states. A Bayesian design was used to generate 200 pairs of states that were randomly grouped into 20 blocks. Each respondent completed 1 block of 10 pairs. A main-effects probit model was used to estimate regression coefficients and to derive values.

Results: Approximately 400 respondents participated from each country. The mean time to perform 1 choice task was between 29.2 (US) and 45.2 (England) seconds. All regression coefficients were statistically significant, except level 2 for Usual Activities in The Netherlands (P=0.51). Predictions for the complete set of 3125 EQ-5D-5L health states were similar for the 4 countries. Intraclass correlation coefficients between the countries were high: from 0.80 (England vs. US) through 0.98 (Canada vs.

Us) Conclusions: Derivation of value sets from the general population using computer-based choice tasks for the EQ-5D-5L is feasible. Parameter estimates were generally consistent and logical, and health-state values were similar across the 4 countries.

Citing Articles

United States Value Set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Eight Dimensions (FACT-8D), a Cancer-Specific Preference-Based Quality of Life Instrument.

King M, Revicki D, Norman R, Muller F, Viney R, Pickard A Pharmacoecon Open. 2023; 8(1):49-63.

PMID: 38060096 PMC: 10781923. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00448-5.


Comparison of Preferences and Data Quality between Discrete Choice Experiments Conducted in Online and Face-to-Face Respondents.

Jiang R, Pullenayegum E, Shaw J, Muhlbacher A, Lee T, Walton S Med Decis Making. 2023; 43(6):667-679.

PMID: 37199407 PMC: 10422849. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231171912.


Societal preferences for funding orphan drugs in China: An application of the discrete choice experiment method.

Tan S, Wang Y, Tang Y, Jiang R, Chen M, Chen H Front Public Health. 2022; 10:1005453.

PMID: 36579068 PMC: 9790908. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1005453.


Do health preferences differ among Asian populations? A comparison of EQ-5D-5L discrete choice experiments data from 11 Asian studies.

Yang Z, Purba F, Shafie A, Igarashi A, Wong E, Lam H Qual Life Res. 2022; 31(7):2175-2187.

PMID: 35181827 PMC: 9188617. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-021-03075-x.


Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods.

Bahrampour M, Byrnes J, Norman R, Scuffham P, Downes M Eur J Health Econ. 2020; 21(7):983-992.

PMID: 32367379 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01189-6.


References
1.
Salomon J, Vos T, Hogan D, Gagnon M, Naghavi M, Mokdad A . Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012; 380(9859):2129-43. PMC: 10782811. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61680-8. View

2.
Knies S, Evers S, Candel M, Severens J, Ament A . Utilities of the EQ-5D: transferable or not?. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009; 27(9):767-79. DOI: 10.2165/11314120-000000000-00000. View

3.
Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A . Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2011; 31(1):306-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.11.004. View

4.
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

5.
Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W . Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states?. Med Decis Making. 2001; 21(4):329-34. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100408. View