IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v36y2016i7p798-810.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exclusion Criteria in National Health State Valuation Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Lidia Engel
  • Nick Bansback
  • Stirling Bryan
  • Mary M. Doyle-Waters
  • David G. T. Whitehurst

Abstract

Background. Health state valuation data are often excluded from studies that aim to provide a nationally representative set of values for preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. The purpose was to provide a systematic examination of exclusion criteria used in the derivation of societal scoring algorithms for preference-based HRQoL instruments. Methods. Data sources included MEDLINE, official instrument websites, and publication reference lists. Analyses that used data from national valuation studies and reported a scoring algorithm for a generic preference-based HRQoL instrument were included. Data extraction included exclusion criteria and associated justifications, exclusion rates, the characteristics of excluded respondents, and analyses that explored consequential implications of exclusion criteria on the respective national tariff. Results. Seventy-six analyses (from 70 papers) met the inclusion criteria. In addition to being excluded for logical inconsistencies, respondents were often excluded if they valued fewer than 3 health states or if they gave the same value to all health states. Numerous other exclusion criteria were identified, with varying degrees of justification, often based on an assumption that respondents did not understand the task or as a consequence of the chosen statistical modeling techniques. Rates of exclusion ranged from 0% to 65%, with excluded respondents more likely to be older, less educated, and less healthy. Limitations included that the database search was confined to MEDLINE; study selection focused on national valuation studies that used standard gamble, time tradeoff, and/or visual analog scale techniques; and only English-language studies were included. Conclusion. Exclusion criteria used in national valuation studies vary considerably. Further consideration is necessary in this important and influential area of research, from the design stage to the reporting of results.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:7:p:798-810
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15595365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15595365
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15595365?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. Benjamin M. Craig & Sulabha Ramachandran, 2006. "Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 835-848, August.
    2. Kharroubi, Samer & Brazier, John E. & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2007. "Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1242-1252, March.
    3. Nancy J. Devlin & Paul Hansen & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 2003. "Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations ‐ a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 529-544, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Dolan, Paul & Roberts, Jennifer, 2002. "To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 919-929, March.
    6. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    7. Jeff Richardson & Neil Atherton Day & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2004. "Measurement of the Quality of Life for Economic Evaluation and the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Mark 2 Instrument," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 37(1), pages 62-88, March.
    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. Valentina Prevolnik Rupel & Marko Ogorevc, 2021. "EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Slovenia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 463-471, April.
    2. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    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. Mônica Viegas Andrade & Kenya Noronha & Paul Kind & Carla de Barros Reis & Lucas Resende de Carvalho, 2016. "Logical Inconsistencies in 3 Preference Elicitation Methods for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 242-252, February.
    5. Richard Edlin & Christopher McCabe & David Meads, 2013. "Assignment errors and the valuation of EQ-5D health states-do responses mean what we think they mean?," Working Papers 1304, Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds.
    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. 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.
    8. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Donna Rowen, 2012. "Methods for Developing Preference-based Measures of Health," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Méndez, Ildefonso & Abellán Perpiñán, Jose M. & Sánchez Martínez, Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2011. "Inverse probability weighted estimation of social tariffs: An illustration using the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 1280-1292.
    10. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: The case of sweet pepper in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 667-677.
    11. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    12. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: the case of sweet pepper in Thailand," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 108349, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    13. 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.
    14. Determann, Domino & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hayen, Arthur P. & Varkevisser, Marco & Schut, Frederik T. & Wit, G. Ardine de, 2016. "What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 10-18.
    15. Caputo, Vincenzina & Loo, Ellen J. Van & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "“Using Experiments to Address Attribute Non-attendance in Consumer Food Choices”," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 177173, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    17. Gil-Lacruz, Ana I. & Gil-Lacruz, Marta, 2011. "Internal Inconsistency and Risk Aversion: Implications on Smoking Decisions/Consistencia interna y aversión al riesgo: implicaciones en la decisión de fumar," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 29, pages 387(18á.)-3, Abril.
    18. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    19. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    20. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).

    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:36:y:2016:i:7:p:798-810. 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.