IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i4p421-436.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Latent Class Models Reveal Poor Agreement between Discrete-Choice and Time Tradeoff Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Eleanor M. Pullenayegum

    (Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • A. Simon Pickard

    (Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA)

  • Feng Xie

    (Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (formerly Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
    Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada)

Abstract

Background. In health economics, there has been interest in using discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) to derive preferences for health states in lieu of previously established approaches like time tradeoff (TTO). We examined whether preferences elicited through DCEs are associated and agree with preferences elicited through TTO tasks. Methods. We used data from 1073 respondents to the Canadian EQ-5D-5L valuation study. Multivariate mixed-effects models specified a common likelihood for the TTO and discrete-choice data, with separate but correlated random effects for the TTO and DCE data, for each of the 5 EQ-5D-5L dimensions. Multivariate latent class models allowed separate but associated latent classes for the DCE and TTO data. Results. Correlation between the random effects for the 2 tasks ranged from −0.12 to 0.75, with only pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression having at least a 50% posterior probability of strong (>0.6) correlation. Latent classes for the TTO and DCE data both featured 1 latent class capturing participants attaching large disutilities to pain/discomfort, another capturing participants attaching large disutility to anxiety/depression, and the third class capturing the remainder. Agreement in class membership was poor (κ coefficient: 0.081; 95% credible interval, 0.033–0.13). Fewer respondents expressed strong disutilities for problems with anxiety/depression or pain/discomfort in the TTO than the DCE data (17% v. 55%, respectively). Conclusions. Stated preferences using TTO and DCEs show association across dimensions but poor agreement at the level of individual health states within respondents. Joint models that assume agreement between DCE and TTO have been used to develop national value sets for the EQ-5D-5L. This work indicates that when combining data from both techniques, methods requiring association but not agreement are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Eleanor M. Pullenayegum & A. Simon Pickard & Feng Xie, 2019. "Latent Class Models Reveal Poor Agreement between Discrete-Choice and Time Tradeoff Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 421-436, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:4:p:421-436
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19841592
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19841592
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19841592?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. Philip Heidelberger & Peter D. Welch, 1983. "Simulation Run Length Control in the Presence of an Initial Transient," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 1109-1144, December.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    3. Angela Robinson & Anne Spencer, 2006. "Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 393-402, April.
    4. 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.
    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. 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.

    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. Sicsic, Jonathan & Krucien, Nicolas & Franc, Carine, 2016. "What are GPs' preferences for financial and non-financial incentives in cancer screening? Evidence for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 116-127.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Feng Xie & Eleanor Pullenayegum & Kathryn Gaebel & Mark Oppe & Paul Krabbe, 2014. "Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best–worst scaling?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(3), pages 281-288, April.
    5. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    6. Paul Hewson & Keming Yu, 2008. "Quantile regression for binary performance indicators," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 401-418, September.
    7. Hancock, Joana & Vieira, Sara & Lima, Hipólito & Schmitt, Vanessa & Pereira, Jaconias & Rebelo, Rui & Girondot, Marc, 2019. "Overcoming field monitoring restraints in estimating marine turtle internesting period by modelling individual nesting behaviour using capture-mark-recapture data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 402(C), pages 76-84.
    8. Tin Cheuk Leung, 2013. "What Is the True Loss Due to Piracy? Evidence from Microsoft Office in Hong Kong," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1018-1029, July.
    9. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    10. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    11. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    12. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    13. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    15. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    16. Kontoleon Andreas & Yabe Mitsuyasu, 2006. "Market Segmentation Analysis of Preferences for GM Derived Animal Foods in the UK," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-38, December.
    17. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    18. Lada, Emily K. & Wilson, James R., 2006. "A wavelet-based spectral procedure for steady-state simulation analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1769-1801, November.
    19. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    20. Koo, Tay T.R. & Wu, Cheng-Lung (Richard) & Dwyer, Larry, 2010. "Ground travel mode choices of air arrivals at regional destinations: The significance of tourism attributes and destination contexts," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 44-53.

    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:39:y:2019:i:4:p:421-436. 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: 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. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.