Discrete Choice Experiments to Generate Utility Values for Multi-attribute Utility Instruments: a Systematic Review of Methods

Overview

Journal Eur J Health Econ

Specialty Health Services

Date 2020 May 6

PMID 32367379

Citations 11

Authors

Mina Bahrampour

Joshua Byrnes

Richard Norman

Paul A Scuffham

Martin Downes

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Cancer-specific utility: clinical validation of the EORTC QLU-C10D in patients with glioblastoma.

Seyringer S, Pilz M, Bottomley A, King M, Norman R, Gamper E Eur J Health Econ. 2024; .

PMID: 39565523 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01729-4.

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.

Discrete Choice Experiments in Health State Valuation: A Systematic Review of Progress and New Trends.

Wang H, Rowen D, Brazier J, Jiang L Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2023; 21(3):405-418.

PMID: 36997744 PMC: 10062300. DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00794-9.

The estimation of health state utility values in rare diseases: do the approaches in submissions for NICE technology appraisals reflect the existing literature? A scoping review.

Meregaglia M, Nicod E, Drummond M Eur J Health Econ. 2022; 24(7):1151-1216.

PMID: 36335234 PMC: 10406664. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-022-01541-y.

Public Preferences and Willingness to Pay for a COVID-19 Vaccine in Iran: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Darrudi A, Daroudi R, Yunesian M, Akbari Sari A Pharmacoecon Open. 2022; 6(5):669-679.

PMID: 35997900 PMC: 9397161. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-022-00359-x.

References

Griffin S, Claxton K, Sculpher M . Decision analysis for resource allocation in health care. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008; 13 Suppl 3:23-30. DOI: 10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008017. View

Kularatna S, Whitty J, Johnson N, Jayasinghe R, Scuffham P . A comparison of health state utility values associated with oral potentially malignant disorders and oral cancer in Sri Lanka assessed using the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC-8D. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016; 14:101. PMC: 4940840. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-016-0502-y. View

Whitehead S, Ali S . Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010; 96:5-21. DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldq033. View

Gu Y, Norman R, Viney R . Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments--a QALY space model approach. Health Econ. 2014; 23(9):1098-114. DOI: 10.1002/hec.3066. View

Krabbe P, Devlin N, Stolk E, Shah K, Oppe M, van Hout B . Multinational evidence of the applicability and robustness of discrete choice modeling for deriving EQ-5D-5L health-state values. Med Care. 2014; 52(11):935-43. PMC: 4196797. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000178. View

Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M . The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002; 21(2):271-92. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00130-8. View

Bjornson K, McLaughlin J . The measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in children with cerebral palsy. Eur J Neurol. 2002; 8 Suppl 5:183-93. DOI: 10.1046/j.1468-1331.2001.00051.x. View

Scuffham P, Whitty J, Mitchell A, Viney R . The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: a review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002-4. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26(4):297-310. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826040-00003. 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

10.

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

11.

Rowen D, Brazier J, van Hout B . A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. Med Decis Making. 2014; 35(3):328-40. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14559542. View

12.

Lancsar E, Wildman J, Donaldson C, Ryan M, Baker R . Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J Health Econ. 2011; 30(2):466-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.01.003. View

13.

Ali S, Ronaldson S . Ordinal preference elicitation methods in health economics and health services research: using discrete choice experiments and ranking methods. Br Med Bull. 2012; 103(1):21-44. DOI: 10.1093/bmb/lds020. View

14.

Stolk E, Oppe M, Scalone L, Krabbe P . Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2010; 13(8):1005-13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00783.x. View

15.

Brazier J, Rowen D, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A . Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale. Eur J Health Econ. 2011; 13(5):575-87. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-011-0352-9. View

16.

Ludwig K, von der Schulenburg J, Greiner W . Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L with composite time trade-off for the German population - an exploratory study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017; 15(1):39. PMC: 5319015. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-017-0617-9. View

17.

Craig B, Busschbach J . Toward a more universal approach in health valuation. Health Econ. 2010; 20(7):864-75. PMC: 3819815. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1650. View

18.

Clark M, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob E . Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014; 32(9):883-902. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x. View

19.

Mulhern B, Norman R, Street D, Viney R . One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018; 37(1):29-43. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0714-6. View

20.

Norman R, Mulhern B, Viney R . The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016; 34(8):805-14. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0399-7. View