Using rank and discrete choice data to estimate health state utility values on the QALY scale
Objective: Recent years have seen increasing interest in the use of ordinal methods to elicit health state utility values as an alternative to conventional methods such as standard gamble and time trade-off. However, in order to use these health state values in cost effectiveness analysis using cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) analysis, these values must be anchored on the full health-dead scale. This study addresses this challenge and examines how rank and discrete choice experiment data can be used to elicit health state utility values anchored on the full health-dead scale and compares the results to time trade-off (TTO) results. Methods: Two valuation studies were conducted using identical methods for two health state classification systems: asthma and overactive bladder. Each valuation study involved interviews of 300 members of the general population using ranking and TTO plus a postal survey using discrete choice experiment sent to all consenting interviewees and a "cold" sample of the general population who were not interviewed. Results: Overall DCE produced different results from ranking and time trade-off, whereas ranking produced similar results to TTO in one study, but not the other. Conclusions: Ordinal methods offer a promising alternative to conventional cardinal methods of standard gamble and TTO. However, the results do not appear to be robust across different health state classification systems and potentially different medical conditions. There remains a large and important research agenda to address.
|Date of creation:||2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Train,Kenneth E., 2009.
"Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, 1.
- Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
- Julie Ratcliffe & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tara Symonds & Martin Brown, 2009. "Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1261-1276.
- Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453, July.
- Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
- Zafar Hakim & Dev S. Pathak, 1999. "Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 103-116.
- Paul Kind & Geoffrey Hardman & Susan Macran, 1999. "UK population norms for EQ-5D," Working Papers 172chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
- Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456.
- McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:29891. 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: (Joachim Winter)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.