IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v26y2025i4d10.1007_s10198-024-01723-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of four approaches in eliciting health state utilities with SF-6Dv2

Author

Listed:
  • Hosein Ameri

    (University of Montreal
    CIUSSS de l’Est de l’Île de Montréal)

  • Thomas G. Poder

    (University of Montreal
    CIUSSS de l’Est de l’Île de Montréal)

Abstract

Objective To empirically compare four preference elicitation approaches, the discrete choice experiment with time (DCETTO), the Best-Worst Scaling with time (BWSTTO), DCETTO with BWSTTO (DCEBWS), and the Standard Gamble (SG) method, in valuing health states using the SF-6Dv2. Methods A representative sample of the general population in Quebec, Canada, completed 6 SG tasks or 13 DCEBWS (i.e., 10 DCETTO followed by 3 BWSTTO). Choice tasks were designed with the SF-6Dv2. Several models were used to estimate SG data, and the conditional logit model was used for the DCE or BWS data. The performance of SG models was assessed using prediction accuracy (mean absolute error [MAE]), goodness of fit using Bayesian information criterion (BIC), t-test, Jarque-Bera (JB) test, Ljung-Box (LB) test, the logical consistency of the parameters, and significance levels. Comparison between approaches was conducted using acceptability (self-reported difficulty and quality levels in answering, and completion time), consistency (monotonicity of model coefficients), accuracy (standard errors), dimensions coefficient magnitude, correlation between the value sets estimated, and the range of estimated values. The variance scale factor was computed to assess individuals’ consistency in their choices for DCE and BWS approaches. Results Out of 828 people who completed SG and 1208 for DCEBWS tasks, a total of 724 participants for SG and 1153 for DCE tasks were included for analysis. Although no significant difference was observed in self-reported difficulties and qualities in answers among approaches, the SG had the longest completion time and excluded participants in SG were more prone to report difficulties in answering. The range of standard errors of the SG was the narrowest (0.012 to 0.015), followed by BWSTTO (0.023 to 0.035), DCEBWS (0.028 to 0.050), and DCETTO (0.028 to 0.052). The highest number of insignificant and illogical parameters was for BWSTTO. Pain dimension was the most important across dimensions in all approaches. The correlation between SG and DCEBWS utility values was the strongest (0.928), followed by the SG and BWSTTO values (0.889), and the SG and DCETTO (0.849). The range of utility values generated by SG tended to be shorter (-0.143 to 1) than those generated by the other three methods, whereas BWSTTO (-0.505 to 1) range values were shorter than DCETTO (-1.063 to 1) and DCEBWS (-0.637 to 1). The variance scale factor suggests that respondents had almost similar level of certainty or confidence in both DCE and BWS responses. Conclusion The SG had the narrowest value set, the lowest completion rates, the longest completion time, the best prediction accuracy, and produced an unexpected sign for one level. The BWSTTO had a narrower value set, lower completion time, higher parameter inconsistency, and higher insignificant levels compared to DCETTO and DCEBWS. The results of DCEBWS were more similar to SG in number of insignificant and illogical parameters, and correlation.

Suggested Citation

  • Hosein Ameri & Thomas G. Poder, 2025. "Comparison of four approaches in eliciting health state utilities with SF-6Dv2," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(4), pages 589-604, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01723-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01723-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-024-01723-w
    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/s10198-024-01723-w?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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Standard gamble; Discrete choice experiment; Best-worst scaling; Health utilities; SF-6Dv2;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:26:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01723-w. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.