IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/respap/001885.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A New Valuation Method: Directly Eliciting Personal Utility Functions

Author

Listed:
  • Devlin, N.
  • Shah, K.
  • Mulhern, B.
  • Pantiri, K.
  • van Hout, B.

Abstract

Standard methods for eliciting the preference data upon which value sets are based (e.g. time trade-off, standard gamble) generally have in common an aim to 'uncover' the preferences of survey respondents by asking them to evaluate a sub-set of health states. The responses are then used to infer their preferences over all possible dimensions and levels. An alternative approach is to ask respondents directly about the relative importance to them of the dimensions, levels and interactions between them This OHE Research Paper describes a new stated preference approach for directly eliciting personal utility functions (PUFs) from members of the general public. The approach focuses on helping respondents to reflect and deliberate on their preferences. A computer-based tool was developed and used to administer the questions via face-to-face interviews. The Research Paper reports the methods and findings of piloting work to test the feasibility and acceptability of the PUF approach for valuing a simplified version of the EQ-5D-5L, a measure of patient-reported outcomes. The PUF approach appears to be feasible. The authors conclude that it has the potential to - (a) yield meaningful, well-informed preference data from respondents; and (b) provide individual preference data that can be aggregated to yield a social value set for the EQ-5D. The paper concludes by describing the research and testing needed to further refine some elements of the approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Devlin, N. & Shah, K. & Mulhern, B. & Pantiri, K. & van Hout, B., 2017. "A New Valuation Method: Directly Eliciting Personal Utility Functions," Research Papers 001885, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:respap:001885
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/system/files/private/publications/459%20-%20A%20New%20Valuation%20Method.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:wly:hlthec:v:27:y:2018:i:1:p:7-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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.
    3. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    4. Devlin, N. & Shah, K.K & Buckingham, K., 2017. "What is the Normative Basis for Selecting the Measure of 'Average' Preferences for Use in Social Choices?," Research Papers 001798, Office of Health Economics.
    5. Karimi, M. & Brazier, J. & Paisley, S., 2017. "How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 80-88.
    6. Ken Buckingham & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "A theoretical framework for TTO valuations of health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1149-1154.
    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. Simon McNamara’s journal round-up for 6th August 2018
      by sjmcnamara1 in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2018-08-06 11:00:29

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Measuring and valuing outcomes;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ohe:respap:001885. 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: (Publications Manager). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.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.

    If CitEc recognized a 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.

    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.