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.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-020-01173-0?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
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Han Bleichrodt & Magnus Johannesson, 1997. "An Experimental Test of a Theoretical Foundation for Rating-scale Valuations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(2), pages 208-216, April.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Terry Flynn, 2010. "Using Conjoint Analysis and Choice Experiments to Estimate QALY Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(9), pages 711-722, September.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Angela Robinson & Graham Loomes & Michael Jones-Lee, 2001. "Visual Analog Scales, Standard Gambles, and Relative Risk Aversion," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 17-27, February.
    17. Angela Robinson & Anne E. Spencer & José Luís Pinto-Prades & Judith A. Covey, 2017. "Exploring Differences between TTO and DCE in the Valuation of Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 273-284, April.
    18. Marieke Krol & Arthur E. Attema & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2016. "Altruistic Preferences in Time Tradeoff," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 187-198, February.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. Brendan Mulhern & Nick Bansback & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya, 2017. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration to Model EQ-5D-5L Health State Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 285-297, April.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. Jeffrey A. Johnson & Arto Ohinmaa & Bhisma Murti & Harri Sintonen & Stephen Joel Coons, 2000. "Comparison of Finnish and U.S.-based Visual Analog Scale Valuations of the EQ-5D Measure," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(3), pages 281-289, July.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. 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.
    29. Alan Schwartz, 1998. "Rating Scales in Context," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(2), pages 236-236.
    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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Edward J. D. Webb & Paul Kind & David Meads & Adam Martin, 2021. "Does a health crisis change how we value health?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(10), pages 2547-2560, September.

    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. 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.
    2. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Webb, Edward J.D. & Hess, Stephane, 2021. "Joint modelling of choice and rating data: Theory and examples," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. Mesfin G. Genie & Nicolas Krucien & Mandy Ryan, 2021. "Weighting or aggregating? Investigating information processing in multi‐attribute choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1291-1305, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    14. Alexander M M Arons & Paul F M Krabbe, 2014. "Quantification of Health by Scaling Similarity Judgments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-10, February.
    15. 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.
    16. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Marcel F. Jonker & Richard Norman, 2022. "Not all respondents use a multiplicative utility function in choice experiments for health state valuations, which should be reflected in the elicitation format (or statistical analysis)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 431-439, February.
    19. Judith Dams & Elisabeth Huynh & Steffi Riedel-Heller & Margrit Löbner & Christian Brettschneider & Hans-Helmut König, 2021. "German tariffs for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluations at the end of life," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(3), pages 365-380, April.
    20. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Koonal Shah & Nick Bansback & Louise Longworth & Rosalie Viney, 2018. "How Should Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration Choice Sets Be Presented for the Valuation of Health States?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 306-318, April.

    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.