IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i5p584-596.html

Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment: Do Adult and Adolescent Preferences Differ?

Author

Listed:
  • David J. Mott

    (Office of Health Economics, London, UK)

  • Koonal K. Shah

    (Office of Health Economics, London, UK
    PHMR, London, UK)

  • Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi

    (Maths in Health, Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Nancy J. Devlin

    (Office of Health Economics, London, UK
    Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Australia)

  • Oliver Rivero-Arias

    (National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK)

Abstract

Background An important question in the valuation of children’s health is whether the preferences of younger individuals should be captured within value sets for measures that are aimed at them. This depends on whether younger individuals can complete valuation exercises and whether their preferences differ from those of adults. This study compared the preferences of adults and adolescents for EQ-5D-Y-3L health states using latent scale values elicited from a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Methods An online DCE survey, comprising 15 pairwise choices, was provided to samples of UK adults and adolescents (aged 11–17 y). Adults considered the health of a 10-year-old child, whereas adolescents considered their own health. Mixed logit models were estimated, and comparisons were made using relative attribute importance (RAI) scores and a pooled model. Results In total, 1000 adults and 1005 adolescents completed the survey. For both samples, level 3 in pain/discomfort was most important, and level 2 in self-care the least important, based on the relative magnitudes of coefficients. The RAI scores (normalized on self-care) indicated that adolescents gave less weight relative to adults to usual activities (1.18 v. 1.51; P

Suggested Citation

  • David J. Mott & Koonal K. Shah & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Nancy J. Devlin & Oliver Rivero-Arias, 2021. "Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment: Do Adult and Adolescent Preferences Differ?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(5), pages 584-596, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:5:p:584-596
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X21999607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X21999607
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X21999607?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. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    2. Paul Dolan & Jan Abel Olsen & Paul Menzel & Jeff Richardson, 2003. "An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 545-551, July.
    3. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    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, 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. Powell, Philip A. & Rowen, Donna & Keetharuth, Anju & Mukuria, Clara & Shah, Koonal, 2024. "Who should value children's health and how? An international Delphi study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 355(C).
    3. Ava Hoogenboom & Vivian Reckers-Droog & Stefan Lipman & Werner Brouwer, 2026. "Nothing about us, without us? A reflection on and call for involving children in the process of valuing child health," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 27(2), pages 355-362, March.
    4. Stefan A. Lipman & Zhirui Guo, 2026. "EQ-5D(-Y) Valuation from Adult and Child Perspectives: Where Does the Empirical Evidence Leave Us and How Should We Proceed?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 267-278, March.
    5. Salas, Patricio & De la Fuente, Rodrigo & Astroza, Sebastian & Carrasco, Juan Antonio, 2025. "Analysis of attribute importance in multinomial logit models using Shapley values-based methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    6. Shitong Xie & Tianxin Pan & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goni & Brendan Mulhern & Zhihao Yang & Richard Norman & Nancy Devlin & Feng Xie, 2025. "Eliciting and Anchoring Health State Preferences Using Discrete Choice Experiments Among Adults, Adolescents, and Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(11), pages 1353-1366, November.

    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. Yu, Alice & Viney, Rosalie & Goodall, Stephen & Street, Deborah J., 2025. "Can an ‘informed’ general population sample be comparable to a patient sample? A case study of preferences for chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    2. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    3. van Hulsen, Merel A.J. & Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & van Exel, Job, 2023. "Preferences for investment in and allocation of additional healthcare capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    4. Non, Arjan & Rohde, Ingrid & de Grip, Andries & Dohmen, Thomas, 2022. "Mission of the company, prosocial attitudes and job preferences: A discrete choice experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim & Tu, Gengyang & Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Whittle, Colin, 2022. "Household acceptability of energy efficiency policies in the European Union: Policy characteristics trade-offs and the role of trust in government and environmental identity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    6. David J. Mott & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale, 2023. "Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 413-423, April.
    7. Ivan Tzintzun & Jonathan Sicsic & Lise Rochaix, 2023. "Into the Far West? Investigating Health Policy-Makers' Willingness to Adopt Decrementally Cost-Effective Innovations Using a DCE Approach," Working Papers halshs-04154933, HAL.
    8. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Schüle, Christopher & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2023. "The motivational drivers behind consumer preferences for regional electricity – Results of a choice experiment in Southern Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Wu, Xinrui & Liu, Ziming & Feng, Shuyi, 2025. "Social norms alleviate the disadvantaged positions of elderly people in charity markets," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(PB).
    10. Ava Hoogenboom & Vivian Reckers-Droog & Stefan Lipman & Werner Brouwer, 2026. "Nothing about us, without us? A reflection on and call for involving children in the process of valuing child health," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 27(2), pages 355-362, March.
    11. Wang, Kaili & Gao, Ya & Nurul Habib, Khandker, 2024. "Modelling household online shopping and home delivery demand using latent class & ordinal generalized extreme value (GEV) models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    12. Yefan Nian & R. David Lamie & Michael Vassalos & Daniel Tregeagle & Ben Boyles & Diana Vossbrinck, 2025. "A Diamond in the Rough: Identifying Heritage Crop Niche Markets in the United States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 56(6), pages 940-960, November.
    13. Karen Trujillo Jara & Daphne C. Voormolen & Werner Brouwer & Job van Exel, 2026. "The value of health and well-being from a societal perspective: A willingness to pay experiment in the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 27(2), pages 259-276, March.
    14. Martin Falk & Eva Hagsten, 2018. "Winter Weather Anomalies and Individual Destination Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, July.
    15. 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).
    16. Laura Enthoven & Goedele Van den Broeck, 2021. "Promoting Food Safety in Local Value Chains: The Case of Vegetables in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    17. David Boto‐García & Antonio Alvarez & José Baños, 2021. "Modelling heterogeneous preferences for nature‐based tourism trips," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(6), pages 1625-1653, December.
    18. Mooney, Gavin, 2005. "Communitarian claims and community capabilities: furthering priority setting?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 247-255, January.
    19. Deborah A. Marshall & Karen V. MacDonald & Nitya Suryaprakash & Raza M. Mirza & Maida J. Sewitch & Geoffrey C. Nguyen, 2025. "Incorporating Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) Questions into Focus Groups to Improve Understanding of Patient Preferences and Refine BWS Attributes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 18(5), pages 481-493, September.
    20. de Hond, Anne & Bakx, Pieter & Versteegh, Matthijs, 2019. "Can time heal all wounds? An empirical assessment of adaptation to functional limitations in an older population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 180-187.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:5:p:584-596. 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.