IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v26y2025i7d10.1007_s10198-025-01769-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Test-retest reliability of the Online Elicitation of Personal Utility Functions (OPUF) approach for valuing the EQ-HWB-S

Author

Listed:
  • Aisha Moolla

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Paul Schneider

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Ole Marten

    (Bielefeld University)

  • Clara Mukuria

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Tessa Peasgood

    (University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Introduction The EQ Health and Wellbeing Short (EQ-HWB-S) is a new 9-item instrument designed to generate utility values. However, its length makes traditional preference elicitation challenging. The Online elicitation of Personal Utility Functions (OPUF) approach has been tested as a potential solution. This study aimed to assess the test-retest reliability of OPUF for valuing the EQ-HWB-S. Methods The OPUF survey was administered twice, two weeks apart, to 220 German participants, including 73 from the general population and 147 patients with diabetes or rheumatic disease. Test-retest reliability was evaluated at individual and aggregate levels, examining dimension rankings, swing weights, level weights, and anchoring factors. Continuous data were analysed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and ranking data were compared using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Individual and aggregate level utility decrements were assessed using ICC and t-tests. Results Approximately 36% of participants had significantly correlated dimension ranks, with 42% selecting the same top-ranked dimension. Poor agreement was shown in 70% of ICC values for individual dimension swing weights. For intermediate level weights, ICC values showed poor agreement in 70% and moderate agreement in 30% of responses. The kappa for individual pairwise comparison tasks was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.54–0.75) showing moderate agreement; however, the ICC for individual-level anchoring factors was 0.12 (p

Suggested Citation

  • Aisha Moolla & Paul Schneider & Ole Marten & Clara Mukuria & Tessa Peasgood, 2025. "Test-retest reliability of the Online Elicitation of Personal Utility Functions (OPUF) approach for valuing the EQ-HWB-S," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(7), pages 1175-1190, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-025-01769-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-025-01769-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-025-01769-4
    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/s10198-025-01769-4?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Mathieu F. Janssen & Erwin Birnie & Gouke Bonsel, 2008. "Feasibility and Reliability of the Annual Profile Method for Deriving QALYs for Short-Term Health Conditions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(4), pages 500-510, July.
    3. Sprangers, Mirjam A. G. & Schwartz, Carolyn E., 1999. "Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(11), pages 1507-1515, June.
    4. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    5. Paul Schneider & Nancy Devlin & Ben van Hout & John Brazier, 2024. "Exploring health preference heterogeneity in the UK: Using the online elicitation of personal utility functions approach to construct EQ‐5D‐5L value functions on societal, group and individual level," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(5), pages 894-910, May.
    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. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    2. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes dit Sourd & Stephane Hess & François-Charles Wolf, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657recent published articles in journals relatedto agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 98(3), pages 201-220.
    3. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    4. Julie Yun Chen & Eric Yuk Fai Wan & Edmond Pui Hang Choi & Anca Ka Chun Chan & Karina Hiu Yen Chan & Joyce Pui Yan Tsang & Cindy Lo Kuen Lam, 2017. "The Health-Related Quality of Life of Chinese Patients on Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(6), pages 799-808, December.
    5. Joseph T. King Jr. & Joel Tsevat & Judith R. Lave & Mark S. Roberts, 2005. "Willingness to Pay for a Quality-Adjusted Life Year: Implications for Societal Health Care Resource Allocation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(6), pages 667-677, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Chia-Huei Wu, 2009. "Enhancing quality of life by shifting importance perception among life domains," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 37-47, March.
    8. Nele Van Hecke & Claudia Claes & Wouter Vanderplasschen & Jessica De Maeyer & Nico De Witte & Stijn Vandevelde, 2018. "Conceptualisation and Measurement of Quality of Life Based on Schalock and Verdugo’s Model: A Cross-Disciplinary Review of the Literature," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 335-351, May.
    9. Paul Dolan & Daniel Kahneman, 2008. "Interpretations Of Utility And Their Implications For The Valuation Of Health," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 215-234, January.
    10. Raphaële R. L. van Litsenburg & Annemieke Kunst & Jaap Huisman & Johannes C. F. Ket & Gertjan J. L. Kaspers & Reinoud J. B. J. Gemke, 2014. "Health Status Utilities in Pediatrics," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(1), pages 21-32, January.
    11. Chan-Hee Park & Eunhee Park & Hyun-Min Oh & Su-Jin Lee & Sun-Hee Park & Tae-Du Jung, 2022. "Health-Related Quality of Life According to Sociodemographic Characteristics in the South Korean Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-9, April.
    12. Lazarevič, Patrick & Brandt, Martina, 2020. "Diverging ideas of health? Comparing the basis of health ratings across gender, age, and country," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    13. Poder, Thomas G. & Ameri, Hosein, 2024. "A novel approach for health state valuation: Multiple bounded dichotomous choice compared to the traditional standard gamble," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 357(C).
    14. Carolyn Schwartz & Penelope Keyl & John Marcum & Rita Bode, 2009. "Helping Others Shows Differential Benefits on Health and Well-being for Male and Female Teens," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 431-448, August.
    15. Ann Bowling & Zahava Gabriel, 2004. "An Integrational Model of Quality of Life in Older Age. Results from the ESRC/MRC HSRC Quality of Life Survey in Britain," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 1-36, October.
    16. Shaun Da Costa; & Koen Decancq; & Marc Fleurbaey; & Erik Schokkaert;, 2024. "Preference elicitation methods and equivalent income: an overview," Working Papers 2409, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    17. Grzegorz Zurek & Agata Goraczko & Alina Żurek & Maciej Lachowicz & Katarzyna Kujawa, 2022. "Restored Life of Elite Athletes after Spinal Cord Injury," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-13, July.
    18. Thomas V Perneger & Didier Hannouche & Hermès H Miozzari & Anne Lübbeke, 2019. "Symptoms of osteoarthritis influence mental and physical health differently before and after joint replacement surgery: A prospective study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, June.
    19. Kaiser, Caspar, 2022. "Using memories to assess the intrapersonal comparability of wellbeing reports," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 410-442.
    20. Faith Martin, 2012. "Perceptions of Links Between Quality of Life Areas: Implications for Measurement and Practice," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 106(1), pages 95-107, March.

    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:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-025-01769-4. 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: 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.