IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v22y2021i9d10.1007_s10198-021-01377-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self vs. other, child vs. adult. An experimental comparison of valuation perspectives for valuation of EQ-5D-Y-3L health states

Author

Listed:
  • S. A. Lipman

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • V. T. Reckers-Droog

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • M. Karimi

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Pharmerit)

  • M. Jakubczyk

    (SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Decision Analysis and Support Unit)

  • A. E. Attema

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

Objectives EQ-5D-Y-3L health states are valued by adults taking the perspective of a 10-year-old child. Compared to valuation of adult EQ-5D instruments, this entails two changes to the perspective: (i) child health states are valued instead of adult health states and: (ii) health states are valued for someone else instead of for oneself. Although earlier work has shown that these combined changes yield different values for child and adult health states that are otherwise equal, it currently remains unclear why. Hence, we aimed to disentangle the effects of both changes. Methods A sample of 205 students (mean age: 19.48) was surveyed. Each respondent completed visual analogue scale (VAS) and time trade-off (TTO) tasks for five EQ-5D-Y-3L states, using four randomly ordered perspectives: (i) self-adult (themselves), (ii) other-adult (someone their age), (iii) self-child (themselves as a 10-year-old), (iv) other-child (a child of 10 years old). We compared how each perspective impacted outcomes, precision and quality of EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation. Results Overall, differences between perspectives were consistent, with their direction being dependent on the health states and respondents. For VAS, the effect on outcomes of valuation depended on severity, but variance was higher in valuation with child perspectives. For TTO, we observed that EQ-5D-Y-3L states valued on behalf of others (i.e., children or adults) received higher valuations, but lower variances. Conclusion The use of a different perspective appears to yield systematic differences in EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation, with considerable heterogeneity between health states and respondents. This may explain mixed findings in earlier work.

Suggested Citation

  • S. A. Lipman & V. T. Reckers-Droog & M. Karimi & M. Jakubczyk & A. E. Attema, 2021. "Self vs. other, child vs. adult. An experimental comparison of valuation perspectives for valuation of EQ-5D-Y-3L health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1507-1518, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01377-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01377-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-021-01377-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/s10198-021-01377-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. Dominik Golicki & Michał Jakubczyk & Katarzyna Graczyk & Maciej Niewada, 2019. "Valuation of EQ-5D-5L Health States in Poland: the First EQ-VT-Based Study in Central and Eastern Europe," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(9), pages 1165-1176, September.
    2. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Brendan J. Mulhern & Krystallia Pantiri & Ben van Hout, 2019. "A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 257-270, March.
    3. Nancy J. Devlin & Aki Tsuchiya & Ken Buckingham & Carl Tilling, 2011. "A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 348-361, March.
    4. Donna Rowen & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Nancy Devlin & Julie Ratcliffe, 2020. "Review of Valuation Methods of Preference-Based Measures of Health for Economic Evaluation in Child and Adolescent Populations: Where are We Now and Where are We Going?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 325-340, April.
    5. Juan M. Ramos-Goñi & Mark Oppe & Elly Stolk & Koonal Shah & Simone Kreimeier & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Nancy Devlin, 2020. "International Valuation Protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 653-663, July.
    6. Lipman, Stefan A. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Attema, Arthur E., 2020. "Living up to expectations: Experimental tests of subjective life expectancy as reference point in time trade-off and standard gamble," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    7. Bas Janssen & Mark Oppe & Matthijs Versteegh & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 5-13, July.
    8. Albrecht, Konstanze & Volz, Kirsten G. & Sutter, Matthias & Laibson, David I. & Yves von Cramon, D., 2011. "What Is for Me Is Not for You: Brain Correlates of Intertemporal Choice for Self and Other," Scholarly Articles 9972760, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    9. Jan Abel Olsen & Admassu N. Lamu & John Cairns, 2018. "In search of a common currency: A comparison of seven EQ‐5D‐5L value sets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 39-49, January.
    10. Arthur E. Attema & Matthijs M. Versteegh & Mark Oppe & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Elly A. Stolk, 2013. "Lead Time Tto: Leading To Better Health State Valuations?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 376-392, April.
    11. Fenja V Ziegler & Richard J Tunney, 2012. "Decisions for Others Become Less Impulsive the Further Away They Are on the Family Tree," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-5, November.
    12. Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe, 2015. "A Review of the Development and Application of Generic Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments for Paediatric Populations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(10), pages 1013-1028, October.
    13. Torbjørn Wisløff & Gunhild Hagen & Vida Hamidi & Espen Movik & Marianne Klemp & Jan Olsen, 2014. "Estimating QALY Gains in Applied Studies: A Review of Cost-Utility Analyses Published in 2010," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 367-375, April.
    14. Rau, Holger A., 2020. "Time preferences in decisions for others," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 395, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    15. Lidia Engel & Nick Bansback & Stirling Bryan & Mary M. Doyle-Waters & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2016. "Exclusion Criteria in National Health State Valuation Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(7), pages 798-810, October.
    16. George W. Torrance & David Feeny & William Furlong, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 329-334, August.
    17. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    18. Stefan A. Lipman & Werner B.F. Brouwer & Arthur E. Attema, 2019. "QALYs without bias? Nonparametric correction of time trade‐off and standard gamble weights based on prospect theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(7), pages 843-854, July.
    19. Matthew Kennedy-Martin & Bernhard Slaap & Michael Herdman & Mandy Reenen & Tessa Kennedy-Martin & Wolfgang Greiner & Jan Busschbach & Kristina S. Boye, 2020. "Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1245-1257, November.
    20. Koonal K. Shah & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Simone Kreimeier & Nancy J. Devlin, 2020. "An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1091-1103, September.
    21. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    22. Arthur Attema & Yvette Edelaar-Peeters & Matthijs Versteegh & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 53-64, July.
    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. Stefan A. Lipman & Liying Zhang & Koonal K. Shah & Arthur E. Attema, 2022. "Correction to: Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(9), pages 1613-1615, December.
    2. Nancy Devlin & Bram Roudijk & Rosalie Viney & Elly Stolk, 2022. "EQ-5D-Y-3L Value Sets, Valuation Methods and Conceptual Questions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 123-127, December.

    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. Stefan A. Lipman & Liying Zhang & Koonal K. Shah & Arthur E. Attema, 2023. "Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 293-305, March.
    2. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    3. Michał Jakubczyk, 2023. "What if 0 is not equal to 0? Inter-personal health utilities anchoring using the largest health gains," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(7), pages 1217-1233, September.
    4. Johanna Vásquez & Sergio Botero, 2020. "Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B.F. Brouwer, 2014. "Deriving Time Discounting Correction Factors For Tto Tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 410-425, April.
    6. Lipman, Stefan A. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Attema, Arthur E., 2020. "Living up to expectations: Experimental tests of subjective life expectancy as reference point in time trade-off and standard gamble," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    7. Michał Jakubczyk, 2023. "Re-revisiting the Utilities of Health States Worse than Dead: The Problem Remains," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 875-885, October.
    8. Sullivan, Trudy & Hansen, Paul & Ombler, Franz & Derrett, Sarah & Devlin, Nancy, 2020. "A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing ‘dead’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    9. Kelleher, Dan & Barry, Luke & Hobbins, Anna & O'Neill, Stephen & Doherty, Edel & O'Neill, Ciaran, 2020. "Examining the transnational health preferences of a group of Eastern European migrants relative to a European host population using the EQ-5D-5L," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    10. Paul Mark Mitchell & Samantha Husbands & Sarah Byford & Philip Kinghorn & Cara Bailey & Tim J. Peters & Joanna Coast, 2021. "Challenges in developing capability measures for children and young people for use in the economic evaluation of health and care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 1990-2003, September.
    11. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    12. Kim Dalziel & Max Catchpool & Borja García-Lorenzo & Inigo Gorostiza & Richard Norman & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2020. "Feasibility, Validity and Differences in Adolescent and Adult EQ-5D-Y Health State Valuation in Australia and Spain: An Application of Best–Worst Scaling," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 499-513, May.
    13. Olsen, Jan Abel & Lindberg, Marie Hella & Lamu, Admassu Nadew, 2020. "Health and wellbeing in Norway: Population norms and the social gradient," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    14. Nan Luo & Minghui Li & Elly Stolk & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 15-24, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Husbands, Samantha & Mitchell, Paul Mark & Kinghorn, Philip & Byford, Sarah & Bailey, Cara & Anand, Paul & Peters, Tim J. & Floredin, Isabella & Coast, Joanna, 2024. "Is well-becoming important for children and young people? Evidence from in-depth interviews with children and young people and their parents," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 122060, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Floortje Nooten & Jan Busschbach & Michel Agthoven & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2018. "What should we know about the person behind a TTO?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(9), pages 1207-1211, December.
    18. Tonya Moen Hansen & Knut Stavem & Kim Rand, 2023. "Completing the time trade-off with respondents who are older, in poorer health or with an immigrant background in an EQ-5D-5L valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 877-884, August.
    19. Arthur Attema & Yvette Edelaar-Peeters & Matthijs Versteegh & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 53-64, July.
    20. Peasgood, Tessa & Bourke, Mackenzie & Devlin, Nancy & Rowen, Donna & Yang, Yaling & Dalziel, Kim, 2023. "Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Health state valuation; Perspective; EQ-5D-Y; Time trade-off; Child health;
    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:22:y:2021:i:9:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01377-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.