Influenced from the Start: Anchoring Bias in Time Trade-off Valuations

Overview

Journal Qual Life Res

Specialties Pharmacology
Rehabilitation Medicine

Date 2016 Mar 28

PMID 27016943

Citations 7

Authors

Liv Ariane Augestad

Knut Stavem

Ivar Sonbo Kristiansen

Carl Haakon Samuelsen

Kim Rand-Hendriksen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The de facto standard method for valuing EQ-5D health states is the time trade-off (TTO), an iterative choice procedure. The TTO requires a starting point (SP), an initial offer of time in full health which is compared to a fixed offer of time in impaired health. From the SP, the time in full health is manipulated until preferential indifference. The SP is arbitrary, but may influence respondents, an effect known as anchoring bias. The aim of the study was to explore the potential anchoring effect and its magnitude in TTO experiments.

Methods: A total of 1249 respondents valued 8 EQ-5D health states in a Web study. We used the lead time TTO (LT-TTO) which allows eliciting negative and positive values with a uniform method. Respondents were randomized to 11 different SPs. Anchoring bias was assessed using OLS regression with SP as the independent variable. In a secondary experiment, we compared two different SPs in the UK EQ-5D valuation study TTO protocol.

Results: A 1-year increase in the SP, corresponding to an increase in TTO value of 0.1, resulted in 0.02 higher recorded LT-TTO value. SP had little impact on the relative distance and ordering of the eight health states. Results were similar to the secondary experiment.

Conclusion: The anchoring effect may bias TTO values. In this Web-based valuation study, the observed anchoring effect was substantial. Further studies are needed to determine whether the effect is present in face-to-face experiments.

Citing Articles

Comparison of Caregiver and General Population Preferences for Dependency-Related Health States.

Rodriguez-Miguez E, Sampayo A Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2024; 23(1):105-117.

PMID: 39256323 PMC: 11729128. DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00908-x.

Rationale, conceptual issues, and resultant protocol for a mixed methods Person Trade Off (PTO) and qualitative study to estimate and understand the relative value of gains in health for children and young people compared to adults.

Peasgood T, Bailey C, Chen G, De Silva A, De Silva Perera U, Norman R PLoS One. 2024; 19(6):e0302886.

PMID: 38829857 PMC: 11146702. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302886.

Exploring non-iterative time trade-off methods for valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states.

Yang Z, Rand K, Stolk E, Busschbach J, Luo N Eur J Health Econ. 2023; 25(7):1087-1094.

PMID: 38104294 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01647-x.

The Psychometric Properties of a Self-Administered, Open-Source Module for Valuing Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Utilities.

Pahuta M, Frombach A, Hashem E, Spence S, Sun C, Wai E Pharmacoecon Open. 2018; 3(2):197-204.

PMID: 30178420 PMC: 6533369. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-018-0092-1.

Assessing the Use of a Feedback Module to Model EQ-5D-5L Health States Values in Hong Kong.

Wong E, Ramos-Goni J, Cheung A, Wong A, Rivero-Arias O Patient. 2017; 11(2):235-247.

PMID: 29019161 PMC: 5845074. DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0278-0.

References

Kruger J . Lake Wobegon be gone! The "below-average effect" and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999; 77(2):221-32. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.77.2.221. View

Attema A, Edelaar-Peeters Y, M Versteegh M, Stolk E . Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods. Eur J Health Econ. 2013; 14 Suppl 1:S53-64. PMC: 3728453. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-013-0508-x. View

Lenert L, Cher D, Goldstein M, Bergen M, Garber A . The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 1998; 18(1):76-83. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9801800115. View

Augestad L, Rand-Hendriksen K, Stavem K, Kristiansen I . Time trade-off and attitudes toward euthanasia: implications of using 'death' as an anchor in health state valuation. Qual Life Res. 2012; 22(4):705-14. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0192-9. View

Devlin N, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K, Tilling C . A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the 'lead time' approach. Health Econ. 2011; 20(3):348-61. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1596. View

Ternent L, Tsuchiya A . A note on the expected biases in conventional iterative health state valuation protocols. Med Decis Making. 2013; 33(4):544-6. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12475093. View

Nord E . The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Making. 1995; 15(3):201-8. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9501500302. View

M Versteegh M, Attema A, Oppe M, Devlin N, Stolk E . Time to tweak the TTO: results from a comparison of alternative specifications of the TTO. Eur J Health Econ. 2013; 14 Suppl 1:S43-51. PMC: 3728436. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-013-0507-y. View

Augestad L, Rand-Hendriksen K, Kristiansen I, Stavem K . Learning effects in time trade-off based valuation of EQ-5D health states. Value Health. 2012; 15(2):340-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.10.010. View

10.

Lenert L, Kaplan R . Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2000; 38(9 Suppl):II138-50. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200009002-00021. View

11.

McNamee P, Ternent L, Gbangou A, Newlands D . A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method. Health Econ. 2009; 19(1):75-87. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1448. View

12.

Robinson A, Spencer A . Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ. 2006; 15(4):393-402. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1069. View

13.

Attema A, M Versteegh M, Oppe M, Brouwer W, Stolk E . Lead time TTO: leading to better health state valuations?. Health Econ. 2012; 22(4):376-92. DOI: 10.1002/hec.2804. View

14.

Dolan P . Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997; 35(11):1095-108. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. View

15.

Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A . The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996; 5(2):141-54. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199603)5:2<141::AID-HEC189>3.0.CO;2-N. View

16.

Tversky A, Kahneman D . Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974; 185(4157):1124-31. DOI: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. View

17.

Dolan P . Thinking about it: thoughts about health and valuing QALYs. Health Econ. 2010; 20(12):1407-16. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1679. View

18.

Wisloff T, Hagen G, Hamidi V, Movik E, Klemp M, Olsen J . Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014; 32(4):367-75. PMC: 3964297. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0136-z. View

19.

Stalhammar N . An empirical note on willingness to pay and starting-point bias. Med Decis Making. 1996; 16(3):242-7. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600308. View

20.

Patrick D, Starks H, Cain K, Uhlmann R, Pearlman R . Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decis Making. 1994; 14(1):9-18. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9401400102. View