IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v33y2013i6p839-852.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Common Scale Valuations across Different Preference-Based Measures

Author

Listed:
  • Mónica Hernández Alava
  • John Brazier
  • Donna Rowen
  • Aki Tsuchiya

Abstract

Background . Different preference-based measures (PBMs) used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) provide different utility values for the same patient. Differences are expected since values have been obtained using different samples, valuation techniques, and descriptive systems. Previous studies have estimated the relationship between pairs of PBMs using patient self-reported data. However, there is a need for an approach capable of generating values directly on a common scale for a range of PBMs using the same sample of general population respondents and valuation technique but keeping the advantages of the different descriptive systems. Methods . General public survey data ( n = 501) in which respondents ranked health states described using subsets of 6 PBMs were analyzed. We develop a new model based on the mixed logit to overcome 2 key limitations of the standard rank-ordered logit model—namely, the unrealistic choice pattern (independence of irrelevant alternatives) and the independence of repeated observations. Results . There are substantial differences in the estimated parameters between the 2 models (mean difference 0.07), leading to different orderings across the measures. Estimated values for the best states described by different PBMs are substantially and significantly different using the standard model, unlike our approach, which yields more consistent results. Limitations . Data come from an exploratory study that is relatively small both in sample size and coverage of health states. Conclusions . This study develops a new, flexible econometric model specifically designed to reflect appropriately the features of rank data. Results support the view that the standard model is not appropriate in this setting and will yield very different and apparently inconsistent results. PBMs can be compared using a common scale by implementation of this new approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Mónica Hernández Alava & John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Aki Tsuchiya, 2013. "Common Scale Valuations across Different Preference-Based Measures," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(6), pages 839-852, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:6:p:839-852
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13475716
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X13475716
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X13475716?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Chiou, Lesley & Walker, Joan L., 2007. "Masking identification of discrete choice models under simulation methods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(2), pages 683-703, December.
    3. Christopher McCabe & Katherine Stevens & Jennifer Roberts & John Brazier, 2005. "Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 231-244, March.
    4. John Calfee & Clifford Winston & Randolph Stempski, 2001. "Econometric Issues In Estimating Consumer Preferences From Stated Preference Data: A Case Study Of The Value Of Automobile Travel Time," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(4), pages 699-707, November.
    5. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, October.
    7. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Aki Tsuchiya & Jan Busschbach, 2004. "A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 873-884, September.
    8. Bernie J. O'Brien & Marian Spath & Gordon Blackhouse & J.L. Severens & Paul Dorian & John Brazier, 2003. "A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF‐6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 975-981, November.
    9. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    10. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Denis Bolduc, 2007. "Identification of parameters in normal error component logit-mixture (NECLM) models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 1095-1125.
    11. R. L. Plackett, 1975. "The Analysis of Permutations," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 24(2), pages 193-202, June.
    12. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Andrews, Donald W K, 2001. "Testing When a Parameter Is on the Boundary of the Maintained Hypothesis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 683-734, May.
    14. Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N. & Natarajan, Lucy & Sproston, Kerry & Lewis, Jane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J., 2008. "Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 874-882, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Laura Mørch Andersen, 2013. "Obtaining reliable Likelihood Ratio tests from simulated likelihood functions," IFRO Working Paper 2013/1, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    3. 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.
    4. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Mónica Hernández Alava, 2012. "Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 715-729, June.
    5. Guevara, C. Angelo & Ben-Akiva, Moshe E., 2013. "Sampling of alternatives in Logit Mixture models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 185-198.
    6. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2010. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values," MPRA Paper 29933, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Terry N. Flynn & Elisabeth Huynh & Tim J. Peters & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Sam Clemens & Alison Moody & Joanna Coast, 2015. "Scoring the Icecap‐a Capability Instrument. Estimation of a UK General Population Tariff," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 258-269, March.
    8. Terry Flynn, 2010. "Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(9), pages 711-722, September.
    9. Ghader, Sepehr & Carrion, Carlos & Zhang, Lei, 2019. "Autoregressive continuous logit: Formulation and application to time-of-day choice modeling," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 240-257.
    10. Antoine Désir & Vineet Goyal & Danny Segev & Chun Ye, 2020. "Constrained Assortment Optimization Under the Markov Chain–based Choice Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(2), pages 698-721, February.
    11. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.
    12. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid & Shahhoseini, Zahra, 2015. "Accommodating taste heterogeneity and desired substitution pattern in exit choices of pedestrian crowd evacuees using a mixed nested logit model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 58-68.
    13. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Denis Bolduc, 2007. "Identification of parameters in normal error component logit-mixture (NECLM) models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 1095-1125.
    14. Burge, Peter & Netten, Ann & Gallo, Federico, 2010. "Estimating the value of social care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 883-894, December.
    15. Marco A. Palma & Dmitry V. Vedenov & David Bessler, 2020. "The order of variables, simulation noise, and accuracy of mixed logit estimates," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 2049-2083, May.
    16. Chiou, Lesley & Walker, Joan L., 2007. "Masking identification of discrete choice models under simulation methods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(2), pages 683-703, December.
    17. Arne Risa Hole & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "The use of heuristic optimization algorithms to facilitate maximum simulated likelihood estimation of random parameter logit models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 66(5), pages 997-1013, November.
    18. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    19. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Budziński, Wiktor, 2019. "Simulation error in maximum likelihood estimation of discrete choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 73-85.
    20. 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.

    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:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:6:p:839-852. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.