IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v18y2017i8d10.1007_s10198-016-0841-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Head-to-head comparison of health-state values derived by a probabilistic choice model and scores on a visual analogue scale

Author

Listed:
  • Paul F. M. Krabbe

    (University of Groningen)

  • Elly A. Stolk

    (EuroQol Research Foundation)

  • Nancy J. Devlin

    (Office of Health Economics)

  • Feng Xie

    (McMaster University)

  • Elise H. Quik

    (University of Groningen)

  • A. Simon Pickard

    (University of Illinois at Chicago)

Abstract

Background Health states were quantified based on discrete choice (DC) modeling and visual analogue scale (VAS) values using the five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). The aim of this study was to determine the extent of the relationship between DC derived values (indirect method) and VAS values (direct method). Methods Data were collected in Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the United States. Respondents were asked to perform paired comparisons between two EQ-5D-5L health states for DC. In total, 400 different EQ-5D-5L states were included. After each DC task, respondents were prompted to score the two states one after another on a VAS. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated between DC and VAS values and illuminating graphs were designed. Results Approximately 400 respondents participated from each country. High similarity [individual intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) >0.85] of DC and moderate correspondence of VAS values were observed for the four countries. Cross-country comparison of DC values shows a nonlinear relationship to the VAS values. Conclusion EQ-5D-5L derived DC and VAS values show a close but nonlinear relationship. Given the obvious biases associated with the VAS, DC methods based on ordinal responses may be a better alternative.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul F. M. Krabbe & Elly A. Stolk & Nancy J. Devlin & Feng Xie & Elise H. Quik & A. Simon Pickard, 2017. "Head-to-head comparison of health-state values derived by a probabilistic choice model and scores on a visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(8), pages 967-977, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:18:y:2017:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-016-0841-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-016-0841-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-016-0841-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-016-0841-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Han Bleichrodt & Magnus Johannesson, 1997. "An Experimental Test of a Theoretical Foundation for Rating-scale Valuations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(2), pages 208-216, April.
    2. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    3. Eleanor Pullenayegum & Feng Xie, 2013. "Scoring the 5-Level EQ-5D," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 567-578, May.
    4. Alan Schwartz, 1998. "Rating Scales in Context," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(2), pages 236-236.
    5. Paul F. M. Krabbe & Joshua A. Salomon & Christopher J. L. Murray, 2007. "Quantification of Health States with Rank-Based Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(4), pages 395-405, July.
    6. Angela Robinson & Graham Loomes & Michael Jones-Lee, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales, Standard Gambles, and Relative Risk Aversion," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 17-27, February.
    7. van Agt, Heleen M. E. & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & Krabbe, Paul F. M. & Bonsel, Gouke J., 1994. "Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(11), pages 1537-1544, December.
    8. Krabbe, Paul F. M. & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & Bonsel, Gouke J., 1997. "The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(11), pages 1641-1652, December.
    9. Zafar Hakim & Dev S. Pathak, 1999. "Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 103-116, March.
    10. George W. Torrance & David Feeny & William Furlong, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 329-334, August.
    11. Koonal Shah & Andrew Lloyd & Mark Oppe & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "One-to-one versus group setting for conducting computer-assisted TTO studies: findings from pilot studies in England and the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 65-73, July.
    12. Torrance, George W., 1976. "Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 129-136.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Irvine, Alastair & van der Pol, Marjon & Phimister, Euan, 2019. "A comparison of professional and private time preferences of General Practitioners," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 256-264.
    2. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Julie Ratcliffe & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tara Symonds & Martin Brown, 2009. "Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference‐based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1261-1276, November.
    3. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    4. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    5. Edward J. D. Webb & John O’Dwyer & David Meads & Paul Kind & Penny Wright, 2020. "Transforming discrete choice experiment latent scale values for EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 787-800, July.
    6. Juan Ramos-Goñi & Oliver Rivero-Arias & María Errea & Elly Stolk & Michael Herdman & Juan Cabasés, 2013. "Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 33-42, July.
    7. Peter Hertzman, 2005. "The cost effectiveness of orlistat in a 1-year weight-management programme for treating overweight and obese patients in Sweden," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 1007-1020, October.
    8. Luciana Scalone & Peep Stalmeier & Silvano Milani & Paul Krabbe, 2015. "Values for health states with different life durations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 917-925, December.
    9. Jason N. Doctor & Han Bleichrodt & H. Jill Lin, 2010. "Health Utility Bias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 58-67, January.
    10. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    11. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 306-318.
    12. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 575-587, October.
    13. Julie Ratcliffe & Terry Flynn & Frances Terlich & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer, 2012. "Developing Adolescent-Specific Health State Values for Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 713-727, August.
    14. Marie-Josée Dion & Pierre Tousignant & Jean Bourbeau & Dick Menzies & Kevin Schwartzman, 2002. "Measurement of Health Preferences among Patients with Tuberculous Infection and Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1_suppl), pages 102-114, September.
    15. Linda A. Merlino & Indranil Bagchi & Thomas N. Taylor & Paul Utrie & Elizabeth Chrischilles & Walton Sumner II & Amy Mudano & Kenneth G. Saag, 2001. "Preferences for Fractures and Other Glucocorticoid-Associated Adverse Effects among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(2), pages 122-132, April.
    16. Paul F.M. Krabbe & Marie-Louise Essink-Bot & Gouke J. Bonsel, 1996. "On the Equivalence of Collectively and Individually Collected Responses," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(2), pages 120-132, June.
    17. Levy, Moshe & Nir, Adi Rizansky, 2012. "The utility of health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 379-392.
    18. Brazier, J & Rowen, D & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2009. "Using rank and discrete choice data to estimate health state utility values on the QALY scale," MPRA Paper 29891, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Oliver, Adam, 2006. "Further evidence of preference reversals: Choice, valuation and ranking over distributions of life expectancy," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 803-820, September.
    20. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EQ-5D; Health states; Valuation methods; Discrete choice model; Visual analogue scale;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:18:y:2017:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-016-0841-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.