IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chy/respap/20cheop.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Time trade-off user manual: props and self-completion methods

Author

Listed:
  • Claire Gudex

Abstract

In 1992, the Measurement and Valuation of Health (MVH) Group at the Centre for Health Economics conducted a study with Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR) comparing different methods of valuing health states (Dolan et al, 1993). A random sample of 335 members of the general population were interviewed in their own homes by specially trained interviewers. Each respondent was asked to value a series of health states using two different valuation methods – Standard Gamble (SG) and Time Trade-Off (TTO). Considerable time and energy went into the production of the protocols for the interviews. Standard methodology (derived primarily from research in Canada and the USA) for both the SG and TTO methods involves the use of specially designed boards and cards. He SG procedure typically uses a ‘probability wheel’ which allows different probabilities of health outcomes to be presented to the respondent, while the TTO typically uses a horizontal sliding scale which allows the length of time spent in a health state to be varied. SG and TTO boards based on the standard methodology were piloted as part of the MVH study and it was found that substantial modifications were required to simplify the material for both the interviewer and the respondent. In addition the standard boards were found to be too large and were difficult to operate. The substantive change made to the SG board during the course of the piloting was the use of a sliding scale rather than a wheel, and a new TTO board was designed so that both sides could be used – one for states considered better than death, and the other for states considered worse than death. A fundamental question arising from the pilot work was the advantage of using props such as boards and cards in the interview. To address this issue, an alternative method of administering the SG and TTO tasks was developed representing a significant departure from the standard methodology. In these modified procedures, the respondent was able to take a much more active role and in fact completed much of the valuation task by him/herself without the use of a board. All four methods performed very well in the main study, to the extent that no single method proved decisively superior to all others from an administrative point of view. Ultimately the choice of method was based on empirical grounds, with the result that the TTO ‘Props’ (with board and cards) was selected as the ‘best’ method for valuing health states in population surveys. Although the MVH Group is now concentrating on the TTO ‘Props’ method in further work, there are certain to be other researchers who want to use the SG method or the TTO in its self-completion form. Thud we want to ensure that all our methods are available to other interested parties in the field of health status measurement. The health states used in this study were based on the EuroQol descriptive system (kind et al, 1994), but these valuation procedures have a general application and can be used for any health state descriptive system. Being aware of the considerable work required in designing and piloting any new methods, we felt that it would be useful if other researchers were able to gain access to a detailed account of the procedures that we had developed. In order to maximise the availability of these designs, we have decided to supplement the initial report describing the piloting and interview design (Thomas and Thomson, 1992) with specific User Guides detailing the four valuation methods. Standard Gamble: Props and Self-completion Time Trade-Off: Props and Self-completion Revisions to the TTO Props method as a result of more recent survey work have also been included. We hope others will be able to pick up from where we have left off, either to make use of the methods in their current form or to modify them further as they wish. In either event we look forward to interest to hearing of the results.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire Gudex, 1994. "Time trade-off user manual: props and self-completion methods," Working Papers 020cheop, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:20cheop
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/occasionalpapers/CHE%20Occasional%20Paper%2020.pdf
    File Function: First version, 1994
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Aki Tsuchiya & Shunya Ikeda & Naoki Ikegami & Shuzo Nishimura & Ikuro Sakai & Takashi Fukuda & Chisato Hamashima & Akinori Hisashige & Makoto Tamura, 2002. "Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(4), pages 341-353.
    3. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 1995. "A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey," Working Papers 138chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    4. Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A & Brazier, J & Young, Tracey A., 2007. "Estimating a preference-based single index from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ)," MPRA Paper 29804, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132.
    6. Carolyn Czoski-Murray & David Meads & Richard Edlin & Claire Hulme & Claudi Gorecki & Jane Nixon & Christopher McCabe, 2014. "Constructing a utility algorithm for the pressure ulcer quality of life-utility instrument (PUQOL-UI)," Working Papers 1404, Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds.
    7. Benjamin M. Craig & Sulabha Ramachandran, 2006. "Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 835-848.
    8. Samuel Aballéa & Aki Tsuchiya, 2007. "Seeing for yourself: feasibility study towards valuing visual impairment using simulation spectacles," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 537-543.
    9. Craig, Benjamin M. & Oppe, Mark, 2010. "From a different angle: A novel approach to health valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 169-174, January.
    10. repec:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-017-0343-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    12. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    13. McTaggart-Cowan, Helen & Tsuchiya, Aki & O'Cathain, Alicia & Brazier, John, 2011. "Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(11), pages 1904-1912, June.
    14. J. Kirsch & A. McGuire, 2000. "Establishing health state valuations for disease specific states: an example from heart disease," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 149-158.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    time trade-off; TTO; MVH Group;

    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:chy:respap:20cheop. 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: (Gill Forder). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/chyoruk.html .

    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 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.

    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.