IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v21y2020i5d10.1007_s10198-020-01173-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transforming discrete choice experiment latent scale values for EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale

Author

Listed:
  • Edward J. D. Webb

    (University of Leeds)

  • John O’Dwyer

    (University of Leeds)

  • David Meads

    (University of Leeds)

  • Paul Kind

    (University of Leeds)

  • Penny Wright

    (University of Leeds)

Abstract

Background Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are widely used to elicit health state preferences. However, additional information is required to transform values to a scale with dead valued at 0 and full health valued at 1. This paper presents DCE-VAS, an understandable and easy anchoring method with low participant burden based on the visual analogue scale (VAS). Methods Responses from 1450 members of the UK general public to a discrete choice experiment (DCE) were analysed using mixed logit models. Latent scale valuations were anchored to a full health = 1, dead = 0 scale using participants’ VAS ratings of three states including the dead. The robustness of results was examined. This included a filtering procedure with the influence each individual respondent had on valuation being calculated, and those whose influence was more than two standard deviations away from the mean excluded. Results Coefficients in all models were in the expected direction and statistically significant. Excluding respondents who self-reported not understanding the VAS task did not significantly influence valuation, but excluding a small number who valued 33333 extremely low did. However, after eight respondents were removed via the filtering procedure, valuations were robust to removing other participants. Conclusion DCE-VAS is a feasible way of anchoring DCE results to a 0–1 anchored scale with low additional respondent burden.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward J. D. Webb & John O’Dwyer & David Meads & Paul Kind & Penny Wright, 2020. "Transforming discrete choice experiment latent scale values for EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 787-800, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01173-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01173-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-020-01173-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Marcel F. Jonker & Arthur E. Attema & Bas Donkers & Elly A. Stolk & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2017. "Are Health State Valuations from the General Public Biased? A Test of Health State Reference Dependency Using Self‐assessed Health and an Efficient Discrete Choice Experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1534-1547, December.
    3. Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2019. "The Inclusion of Spillover Effects in Economic Evaluations: Not an Optional Extra," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 451-456, April.
    4. John Brazier & Christopher McCabe, 2007. "‘Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in CUA’ by Parkin and Devlin a response: ‘yes there is a case, but what does it add to ordinal data?’," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(6), pages 645-647, June.
    5. Juan Ramos-Goñi & Oliver Rivero-Arias & María Errea & Elly Stolk & Michael Herdman & Juan Cabasés, 2013. "Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 33-42, July.
    6. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    7. Terry Flynn, 2010. "Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(9), pages 711-722, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Eve Wittenberg & Lyndon P. James & Lisa A. Prosser, 2019. "Spillover Effects on Caregivers’ and Family Members’ Utility: A Systematic Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 475-499, April.
    10. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    11. Regier, Dean A. & Watson, Verity & Burnett, Heather & Ungar, Wendy J., 2014. "Task complexity and response certainty in discrete choice experiments: An application to drug treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 40-49.
    12. Bleichrodt, Han & Filko, Martin, 2008. "New tests of QALYs when health varies over time," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1237-1249, September.
    13. Wolfgang Greiner & Tom Weijnen & Martin Nieuwenhuizen & Siem Oppe & Xavier Badia & Jan Busschbach & Martin Buxton & Paul Dolan & Paul Kind & Paul Krabbe & Arto Ohinmaa & David Parkin & Montserat Roset, 2003. "A single European currency for EQ-5D health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 4(3), pages 222-231, September.
    14. Julie Ratcliffe & Leah Couzner & Terry Flynn & Michael Sawyer & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Leonie Burgess, 2011. "Valuing child health utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 15-27, January.
    15. 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.
    16. John Brazier & Paul Dolan & Korina Karampela & Isabel Towers, 2006. "Does the whole equal the sum of the parts? Patient‐assigned utility scores for IBS‐related health states and profiles," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 543-551, June.
    17. Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "A Pilot Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Preferences for EQ-5D-5L Health States," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 287-298, June.
    18. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    19. Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman & John Brazier & Paula Cronin & Madeleine T. King & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street, 2014. "An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment To Value Eq‐5d Health States," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(6), pages 729-742, June.
    20. Chandra R. Bhat, 2000. "Incorporating Observed and Unobserved Heterogeneity in Urban Work Travel Mode Choice Modeling," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 228-238, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 27th July 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-07-27 11:00:01

    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. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney, 2019. "One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 29-43, January.
    2. Koonal K. Shah & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Simone Kreimeier & Nancy J. Devlin, 2020. "An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1091-1103, September.
    3. Richard Norman & Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber & Donna Rowen & John E. Brazier & David Cella & A. Simon Pickard & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Dennis Revicki & Madeleine T. King & On behalf of the Eu, 2019. "U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU‐C10D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1385-1401, December.
    4. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Koonal K. Shah & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Simone Kreimeier & Nancy J. Devlin, 0. "An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 0, pages 1-13.
    6. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    7. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Anika Kaczynski & Peter Zweifel & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    8. John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Helene Chevrou-Severac, 2017. "A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 21-31, December.
    9. Richard De Abreu Lourenço & Nancy Devlin & Kirsten Howard & Jason J. Ong & Julie Ratcliffe & Jo Watson & Esther Willing & Elisabeth Huynh, 2021. "Giving a Voice to Marginalised Groups for Health Care Decision Making," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 5-10, January.
    10. Shimelis Araya Geda & Rainer Kühl, 2021. "Exploring Smallholder Farmers’ Preferences for Climate-Smart Seed Innovations: Empirical Evidence from Southern Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    11. Arne Risa Hole & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2016. "Response Patterns in Health State Valuation Using Endogenous Attribute Attendance and Latent Class Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 212-224, February.
    12. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.
    13. Leonie Burgess & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Jordan Louviere, 2012. "Design of Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 42, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Krah, Kwabena & Michelson, Hope & Perge, Emilie & Jindal, Rohit, 2019. "Constraints to adopting soil fertility management practices in Malawi: A choice experiment approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Rico Krueger & Akshay Vij & Taha H. Rashidi, 2018. "A Dirichlet Process Mixture Model of Discrete Choice," Papers 1801.06296, arXiv.org.
    16. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    17. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Brendan J. Mulhern & Krystallia Pantiri & Ben van Hout, 2019. "A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 257-270, March.
    18. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    19. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    20. Marcel F. Jonker & Bas Donkers & Esther de Bekker‐Grob & Elly A. Stolk, 2019. "Attribute level overlap (and color coding) can reduce task complexity, improve choice consistency, and decrease the dropout rate in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 350-363, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EQ-5D; Discrete choice experiment; Anchoring; Visual analogue scale; Valuation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I30 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General
    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making

    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:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01173-0. 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: http://www.springer.com .

    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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.