nach oben

The European Journal of Health Economics

Erschienen in:

04.05.2020 | Original Paper

Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods

verfasst von: Mina Bahrampour, Joshua Byrnes, Richard Norman, Paul A. Scuffham, Martin Downes

Erschienen in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Ausgabe 7/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

In recent years, discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have become frequently used to generate utility values, but there are a diverse range of approaches to do this. The primary focus of this systematic review is to summarise the methods used for the design and analysis of DCEs when estimating utility values in both generic and condition-specific preference-based measures.

Methods

Published literature using DCEs to estimate utility values from preference-based instruments were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL using PRISMA guidelines. To assess the different DCE methods, standardised information was extracted from the articles including the DCE design method, the number of choice sets, the number of DCE pairs per person, randomisation of questions, analysis method, logical consistency tests and techniques for anchoring utilities. The CREATE checklist was used to assess the quality of the studies.

Results

A total of 38 studies with samples from the general population, students and patients were included. Values for health states described using generic multi attribute instruments (MAUIs) (especially the EQ-5D) were the most commonly explored using DCEs. The studies showed considerable methodology and design diversity (number of alternatives, attributes, sample size, choice task presentation and analysis). Despite these differences, the quality of articles reporting the methods used for the DCE was generally high.

Conclusion

DCEs are an important approach to measure utility values for both generic and condition-specific instruments. However, a gold standard method cannot yet be recommended.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Kluge, E.-H.W.: Resource allocation in healthcare: implications of models of medicine as a profession. Medscape Gen. Med. 9(1), 57–57 (2007)

Griffin, S., Claxton, K., Sculpher, M.: Decision analysis for resource allocation in health care. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 13(3_suppl), 23–30 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008017PubMedCrossRef

Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G.L., Torrance, G.W.: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, UK (2015)

Kularatna, S., Whitty, J.A., Johnson, N.W., Jayasinghe, R., Scuffham, P.A.: A comparison of health state utility values associated with oral potentially malignant disorders and oral cancer in Sri Lanka assessed using the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC-8D. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 14, 101 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0502-yPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Whitehead, S.J., Ali, S.: Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br. Med. Bull. 96(1), 5–21 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq033PubMedCrossRef

Gu, Y., Norman, R., Viney, R.: Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments—a qaly space model approach. Health Econ. 23(9), 1098–1114 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3066PubMedCrossRef

Krabbe, P.F., Devlin, N.J., Stolk, E.A., Shah, K.K., Oppe, M., van Hout, B., Quik, E.H., Pickard, A.S., Xie, F.: Multinational evidence of the applicability and robustness of discrete choice modeling for deriving EQ-5D-5L health-state values. Med. Care 52(11), 935–943 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000178PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Deverill, M.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ. 21(2), 271–292 (2002)PubMed

Bjornson, K., McLaughlin, J.: The measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in children with cerebral palsy. Eur. J. Neurol. 8(s5), 183–193 (2001)PubMed

10.

Scuffham, P.A., Whitty, J.A., Mitchell, A., Viney, R.: The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations. PharmacoEconomics 26(4), 297–310 (2008)PubMed

11.

McCabe, C., Brazier, J., Gilks, P., Tsuchiya, A., Roberts, J., O’Hagan, A., Stevens, K.: Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J. Health Econ. 25(3), 418–431 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.07.008PubMedCrossRef

12.

Ryan, M., Netten, A., Skåtun, D., Smith, P.: Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome—an application to social care for older people. J. Health Econ. 25(5), 927–944 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.01.001PubMedCrossRef

13.

Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Van Hout, B.: A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. Med. Decis. Making 35(3), 328–340 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14559542PubMedCrossRef

14.

Lancsar, E., Wildman, J., Donaldson, C., Ryan, M., Baker, R.: Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments. J. Health Econ. 30(2), 466–478 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.01.003PubMedCrossRef

15.

Ali, S., Ronaldson, S.: Ordinal preference elicitation methods in health economics and health services research: using discrete choice experiments and ranking methods. Br. Med. Bull. 103(1), 21–44 (2012)PubMed

16.

Stolk, E.A., Oppe, M., Scalone, L., Krabbe, P.F.: Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health 13(8), 1005–1013 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00783.xPubMedCrossRef

17.

Brazier, J., Rowen, D., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A.: Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale. Eur. J. Health Econ. 13(5), 575–587 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-011-0352-9PubMedCrossRef

18.

Ludwig, K., von der Schulenburg, J.G., Greiner, W.: Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L with composite time trade-off for the German population—an exploratory study. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 15(1), 39 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0617-9PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

19.

Craig, B.M., Busschbach, J.J.V.: Towards a more universal approach in health valuation. Health Econ. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1650PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

20.

Clark, M.D., Determann, D., Petrou, S., Moro, D., de Bekker-Grob, E.W.: Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics 32(9), 883–902 (2014)PubMed

21.

Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Street, D.J., Viney, R.: One method, many methodological choices: a structured review of discrete-choice experiments for health state valuation. PharmacoEconomics 37(1), 29–43 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0714-6PubMedCrossRef

22.

Mulhern, B., Norman, R., Lorgelly, P., Lancsar, E., Ratcliffe, J., Brazier, J., Viney, R.: Is dimension order important when valuing health states using discrete choice experiments including duration? PharmacoEconomics (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0475-zPubMedCrossRef

23.

King, M.T., Viney, R., Simon Pickard, A., Rowen, D., Aaronson, N.K., Brazier, J.E., Cella, D., Costa, D.S.J., Fayers, P.M., Kemmler, G., McTaggart-Cowen, H., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Peacock, S., Street, D.J., Young, T.A., Norman, R., On behalf of the, M.C.: Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. PharmacoEconomics 36(2), 225–238 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0582-5PubMedCrossRef

24.

Bansback, N., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., Anis, A.: Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J. Health Econ. 31(1), 306–318 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.11.004PubMedCrossRef

25.

Burr, J.M., Kilonzo, M., Vale, L., Ryan, M.: Developing a preference-based Glaucoma Utility Index using a discrete choice experiment. Optom. Vis. Sci. 84(8), 797–808 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181339f30PubMedCrossRef

26.

Ratcliffe, J., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., Symonds, T., Brown, M.: 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 Econ. 18(11), 1261–1276 (2009)PubMed

27.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151(4), 264–269 (2009)PubMed

28.

Xie, F., Pickard, A.S., Krabbe, P.F., Revicki, D., Viney, R., Devlin, N., Feeny, D.: A checklist for reporting valuation studies of multi-attribute utility-based instruments (CREATE). PharmacoEconomics 33(8), 867–877 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0292-9PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

29.

Bridges, J.F., Hauber, A.B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L.A., Regier, D.A., Johnson, F.R., Mauskopf, J.: Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health 14(4), 403–413 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013PubMedCrossRef

30.

de Bekker-Grob, E.W., Ryan, M., Gerard, K.: Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 21(2), 145–172 (2012)PubMed

31.

Selivanova, A., Buskens, E., Krabbe, P.F.M.: Head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L health values. PharmacoEconomics 36(6), 715–725 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0647-0PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

32.

Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N., Brazier, J., Cella, D., Costa, D., Fayers, P., Kemmler, G., Peacock, S., Pickard, A., Rowen, D., Street, D., Velikova, G., Young, T., King, M., Aaronson, N.K., Brazier, J.E., Costa, D.S.J., Fayers, P.M., Pickard, A.S.: Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Qual. Life Res. 25(3), 637–649 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3PubMedCrossRef

33.

Norman, R., Kemmler, G., Viney, R., Pickard, A.S., Gamper, E., Holzner, B., Nerich, V., King, M.: Order of presentation of dimensions does not systematically bias utility weights from a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 19(8), 1033–1038 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.07.003PubMedCrossRef

34.

Gamper, E.-M., Holzner, B., King, M.T., Norman, R., Viney, R., Nerich, V., Kemmler, G.: Test-retest reliability of discrete choice experiment for valuations of QLU-C10D health states. Value Health 21(8), 958–966 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.11.012PubMedCrossRef

35.

Huynh, E., Coast, J., Rose, J., Kinghorn, P., Flynn, T.: Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life. Soc. Sci. Med. 189, 114–128 (2017)PubMed

36.

Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Pickard, A.S., Ramos Goñi, J.M., Jo, M.W., Igarashi, A., Jo, M.-W.: Transforming latent utilities to health utilities east does not meet west. Health Econ. 26(12), 1524–1533 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3444PubMedCrossRef

37.

Krabbe, P.F.M., Stolk, E.A., Devlin, N.J., Xie, F., Quik, E.H., Pickard, A.S.: Head-to-head comparison of health-state values derived by a probabilistic choice model and scores on a visual analogue scale. Eur. J. Health Econ. 18(8), 967–977 (2017)PubMed

38.

Pullenayegum, E., Xie, F.: Scoring the 5-level EQ-5D: can latent utilities derived from a discrete choice model be transformed to health utilities derived from time tradeoff tasks? Med. Decis. Making 33(4), 567–578 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13475718PubMedCrossRef

39.

Scalone, L., Stalmeier, P.F., Milani, S., Krabbe, P.F.: Values for health states with different life durations. Eur. J. Health Econ. 16(9), 917–925 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0634-0PubMedCrossRef

40.

Ratcliffe, J., Flynn, T., Terlich, F., Stevens, K., Brazier, J., Sawyer, M.: Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation: an application of profile case best-worst scaling to the Child Health Utility 9D. PharmacoEconomics 30(8), 713–727 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2165/11597900-000000000-00000PubMedCrossRef

41.

Prosser, L.A., Payne, K., Rusinak, D., Shi, P., Messonnier, M.: Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit time trade-off and willingness-to-pay amounts for influenza health-related quality of life at different ages. PharmacoEconomics 31(4), 305–315 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0029-6PubMedCrossRef

42.

Purba, F., Hunfeld, J., Iskandarsyah, A., Fitriana, T., Sadarjoen, S., Ramos-Goñi, J., Passchier, J., Busschbach, J., Purba, F.D., Hunfeld, J.A.M., Fitriana, T.S., Sadarjoen, S.S., Ramos-Goñi, J.M., Busschbach, J.J.V.: The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L Value Set. PharmacoEconomics 35(11), 1153–1165 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0538-9PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

43.

Eckert, J., Lichters, M., Piedmont, S., Vogt, B., Robra, B.P.: Case vignettes based on EQ-5D to elicit stated preferences for health services utilization from the insurees' perspective. BMC Health Serv. Res. 15, 481 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1143-2PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

44.

Jonker, M.F., Donkers, B., de Bekker-Grob, E.W., Stolk, E.A.: Advocating a paradigm shift in health-state valuations: the estimation of time-preference corrected QALY tariffs. Value Health 21(8), 993–1001 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.01.016PubMedCrossRef

45.

Craig, B.M., Rand, K.: Choice defines QALYs: a US valuation of the EQ-5D-5L. Med. Care 56(6), 529–536 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000912PubMedCrossRef

46.

Ramos-Goni, J.M., Rivero-Arias, O., Errea, M., Stolk, E.A., Herdman, M., Cabases, J.M.: Dealing with the health state 'dead' when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states. Eur. J. Health Econ. 14(Suppl 1), S33–42 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0511-2PubMedCrossRef

47.

Ramos-Goñi, J.M., Pinto-Prades, J.L., Oppe, M., Cabasés, J.M., Serrano-Aguilar, P., Rivero-Arias, O.: Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med. Care 55(7), e51–e58 (2017)PubMed

48.

Bansback, N., Hole, A.R., Mulhern, B., Tsuchiya, A.: Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: addressing design and sampling issues. Soc. Sci. Med. 114, 38–48 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.026PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

49.

Mulhern, B., Shah, K., Janssen, M.F., Longworth, L., Ibbotson, R.: Valuing health using time trade-off and discrete choice experiment methods: does dimension order impact on health state values? Value Health 19(2), 210–217 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2015.11.005PubMedCrossRef

50.

Shiroiwa, T., Ikeda, S., Noto, S., Igarashi, A., Fukuda, T., Saito, S., Shimozuma, K.: Comparison of value set based on DCE and/or TTO data: scoring for EQ-5D-5L health states in Japan. Value Health 19(5), 648–654 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1834PubMedCrossRef

51.

Versteegh, M.M., Brouwer, W.B.F.: Patient and general public preferences for health states: a call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc. Sci. Med. 165, 66–74 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.043PubMedCrossRef

52.

Huber, J., Zwerina, K.: The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Market. Res. 307–317 (1996).

53.

Vanniyasingam, T., Cunningham, C.E., Foster, G., Thabane, L.: Simulation study to determine the impact of different design features on design efficiency in discrete choice experiments. BMJ Open 6(7), e011985 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011985.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

54.

Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H.: Applied choice analysis, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, UK (2015)

55.

Kitamura, R., Yoshii, T., Yamamoto, T.: Expanding sphere of travel behaviour research: selected papers from the 11th international conference on travel behaviour research. Emerald Group Publishing, (2009)

56.

De Martino, B., Harrison, N.A., Knafo, S., Bird, G., Dolan, R.J.: Explaining enhanced logical consistency during decision making in autism. J. Neurosci. 28(42), 10746–10750 (2008)PubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Arrow, K.J.: Risk perception in psychology and economics. Econ. Inq. 20(1), 1–9 (1982)

58.

Norman, R., Cronin, P., Viney, R.: A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 11(3), 287–298 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0035-zPubMedCrossRef

59.

Mulhern, B., Bansback, N., Hole, A.R., Tsuchiya, A.: Using discrete choice experiments with duration to model EQ-5D-5L health state preferences. Med. Decis. Making 37(3), 285–297 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16670616PubMedCrossRef

60.

Lancsar, E., Louviere, J.: Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ. 15(8), 797–811 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1104PubMedCrossRef

61.

Hakim, Z.: Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling. Health Econ. 8(2), 103–116 (1999)PubMed

62.

Lamers, L.M.: The transformation of utilities for health states worse than death: consequences for the estimation of EQ-5D value sets. Med. Care 45(3), 238–244 (2007)PubMed

63.

Robinson, A., Spencer, A., Moffatt, P.: A framework for estimating health state utility values within a discrete choice experiment: modeling risky choices. Med. Decis. Making 35(3), 341–350 (2015)PubMed

64.

Attema, A.E., Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Versteegh, M.M., Stolk, E.A.: Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods. Eur. J. Health Econ. 14(Suppl 1), 53–64 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0508-xPubMedCentralCrossRef

65.

Hauber, A.B., González, J.M., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C.G.M., Prior, T., Marshall, D.A., Cunningham, C., Ijzerman, M.J., Bridges, J.F.P.: Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value Health 19(4), 300–315 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods
verfasst von: Mina Bahrampour
Joshua Byrnes
Richard Norman
Paul A. Scuffham
Martin Downes
Publikationsdatum: 04.05.2020
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: The European Journal of Health Economics / Ausgabe 7/2020
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Elektronische ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01189-6

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2020

Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments

Patterns of care and cost profiles of women with breast cancer in Italy: EPICOST study based on real world data

Impacts of air pollution on health: evidence from longitudinal cohort data of patients with cardiovascular diseases

Quantifying the economic impact of caregiving for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in Spain

Cost-effectiveness of biennial screening for diabetes related retinopathy in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes compared to annual screening

Modeling Personalized Adjuvant TreaTment in EaRly stage coloN cancer (PATTERN)