IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i7-8p901-913.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing the Dental Caries Utility Index in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Ruvini M. Hettiarachchi

    (Centre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia)

  • Sanjeewa Kularatna

    (Australian Centre for Health Services Innovacions and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, The Queensland University of Technology, QLD, Australia)

  • Joshua Byrnes

    (Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University, QLD, Australia
    Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, QLD, Australia)

  • Brendan Mulhern

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia)

  • Gang Chen

    (Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia)

  • Paul A. Scuffham

    (Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University, QLD, Australia
    Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, QLD, Australia)

Abstract

Introduction The Dental Caries Utility Index (DCUI) is a new oral health–specific health state classification system for adolescents, consisting of 5 domains: pain/discomfort, difficulty eating food/drinking, worried, ability to participate in activities, and appearance. Each domain has 4 response levels. This study aims to generate an Australian-specific utility algorithm for the DCUI. Methods An online survey was conducted using a representative sample of the adult Australian general population. The discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to elicit the preferences on 5 domains. Then, the latent utilities were anchored onto the full health-dead scale using the visual analogue scale (VAS). DCE data were modeled using conditional logit, and 2 anchoring procedures were considered: anchor based on the worst health state and a mapping approach. The optimal anchoring procedure was selected based on the model parsimony and the mean absolute error (MAE). Results A total of 995 adults from the Australian general population completed the survey. The conditional logit estimates on 5 dimensions and levels were monotonic and statistically significant, except for the second level of the “worried†and “appearance†domains. The mapping approach was selected based on a smaller MAE between the 2 anchoring procedures. The Australian-specific tariff of DCUI ranges from 0.1681 to 1. Conclusion This study developed a utility algorithm for the DCUI. This value set will facilitate utility value calculations from the participants’ responses for DCUI in economic evaluations of dental caries interventions targeted for adolescents. Highlights Preference-based quality-of-life measures (PBMs), which consist of a health state classification system and a set of utility values (a scoring algorithm), are used to generate utility weights for economic evaluations. This study is the first to develop an Australian utility value set for the Dental Caries Utility Index (DCUI), a new oral health–specific classification system for adolescents. The availability of a utility value set will enable using DCUI in economic evaluations of oral health interventions targeted for adolescents and may ultimately lead to more effective and efficient planning of oral health care services.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruvini M. Hettiarachchi & Sanjeewa Kularatna & Joshua Byrnes & Brendan Mulhern & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2023. "Valuing the Dental Caries Utility Index in Australia," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 901-913, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:7-8:p:901-913
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231197149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231197149
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231197149?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. Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Katherine Stevens & Sandra Bradley & Leah Couzner & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer & Rachel Roberts & Elisabeth Huynh & Terry Flynn, 2015. "Valuing Child Health Utility 9D Health States with Young Adults: Insights from a Time Trade Off Study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 485-492, October.
    2. Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
    3. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Ben Van Hout, 2015. "A Comparison of Methods for Converting DCE Values onto the Full Health-Dead QALY Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 328-340, April.
    4. Bing Wang & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Lynne Giles & Helen Marshall, 2017. "Adolescent values for immunisation programs in Australia: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, July.
    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. 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.
    2. Joseph Kwon & Louise Freijser & Elisabeth Huynh & Martin Howell & Gang Chen & Kamran Khan & Shahd Daher & Nia Roberts & Conrad Harrison & Sarah Smith & Nancy Devlin & Kirsten Howard & Emily Lancsar & , 2022. "Systematic Review of Conceptual, Age, Measurement and Valuation Considerations for Generic Multidimensional Childhood Patient-Reported Outcome Measures," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 379-431, April.
    3. Fanni Rencz & Gábor Ruzsa & Alex Bató & Zhihao Yang & Aureliano Paolo Finch & Valentin Brodszky, 2022. "Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L in Hungary," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 205-215, December.
    4. Bethan Copsey & James Buchanan & Raymond Fitzpatrick & Sarah E. Lamb & Susan J. Dutton & Jonathan A. Cook, 2019. "Duration of Treatment Effect Should Be Considered in the Design and Interpretation of Clinical Trials: Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 461-473, May.
    5. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Ali Ardeshiri & Spring Sampson & Joffre Swait, 2019. "Seasonality Effects on Consumers Preferences Over Quality Attributes of Different Beef Products," Papers 1902.02419, arXiv.org.
    7. 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.
    8. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    9. Tobias Börger, 2016. "Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 389-413, October.
    10. Noel, Lance & Papu Carrone, Andrea & Jensen, Anders Fjendbo & Zarazua de Rubens, Gerardo & Kester, Johannes & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2019. "Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and vehicle-to-grid applications: A Nordic choice experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 525-534.
    11. 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).
    12. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    13. Komarek, Timothy M. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2011. "Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: Choice experiment evidence from a research institution," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5105-5115, September.
    14. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    15. Pfarr Christian & Ulrich Volker, 2011. "Discrete-Choice-Experimente zur Ermittlung der Präferenzen für Umverteilung," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 62(3), pages 232-262, December.
    16. Jemimah Ride & Emily Lancsar, 2016. "Women’s Preferences for Treatment of Perinatal Depression and Anxiety: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, June.
    17. Axel C. Mühlbacher & John F. P. Bridges & Susanne Bethge & Ch.-Markos Dintsios & Anja Schwalm & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Matthias Nübling, 2017. "Preferences for antiviral therapy of chronic hepatitis C: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(2), pages 155-165, March.
    18. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    19. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.
    20. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.

    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:43:y:2023:i:7-8:p:901-913. 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.