IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Deriving utility weights for the EQ-5D-5L using a discrete choice experiment. CHERE Working Paper 2012/01

  • Richard Norman

    ()

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Paula Cronin

    ()

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Rosalie Viney

    ()

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

Purpose: To estimate an Australian algorithm for the newly developed 5-level version of the EQ-5D, for use in the economic evaluation of health and healthcare interventions. Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was run in an online Australian-representative sample. A random-effects probit model was estimated, and converted to a zero to one scale for use in economic evaluation. Results: At least one choice set was completed by 944 respondents, of which 932 completed all ten choice sets. The mean and median completion times were 17.9 and 9.4 minutes respectively, demonstrating a highly skewed pattern. Respondents were slightly younger and better-educated than the general Australian population. The regression results broadly reflect the monotonic nature of the EQ-5D-5L. Utility increases in life expectancy, and decreases in higher levels in each dimension of the instrument. A high proportion of respondents found the task clear and relatively easy to complete. Conclusions: DCEs are a valuable approach in the estimation of utility weights for multi-attribute utility instruments such as the EQ-5D-5L.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/wp2012_1.pdf
File Function: First version,
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney in its series Working Papers with number 2012/01.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Jan 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2012/01
Contact details of provider: Postal: Level 4, 645 Harris Street, Ultimo, NSW 2007
Phone: +61 2 9514 9799
Fax: 61 2 9514 4730
Web page: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Bleichrodt, Han & Wakker, Peter & Johannesson, Magnus, 1997. "Characterizing QALYs by Risk Neutrality," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 107-14, November.
  2. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
  3. Angela Robinson & Anne Spencer, 2006. "Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 393-402.
  4. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua A. & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2007. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198569824, March.
  5. Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney & Madeleine King & Deborah Street & John Brazier & Julie Ratcliffe, 2007. "Valuing EQ-5D health states: A review and analysis, CHERE Working Paper 2007/9," Working Papers 2007/9, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
  6. Scott, Anthony, 2001. "Eliciting GPs' preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 329-347, May.
  7. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
  8. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840.
  9. Joanna Coast & Terry N. Flynn & Chris Salisbury & Jordan Louviere & Tim J. Peters, 2006. "Maximising Responses to Discrete Choice Experiments: A Randomised Trial," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer Healthcare | Adis, vol. 5(4), pages 249-260.
  10. 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.
  11. Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Jes S�gaard, 2001. "Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 617-634.
  12. 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, 06.
  13. Eve Wittenberg & Lisa A. Prosser, 2011. "Ordering Errors, Objections and Invariance in Utility Survey Responses: A Framework for Understanding Who, Why and What to Do," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer Healthcare | Adis, vol. 9(4), pages 225-241.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2012/01. 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: (Liz Chinchen)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.