Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open-ended and iteration-based time trade-off (TTO) tasks can both be used for valuation of health states. It has so far not been examined how the elicitation procedure affects the valuation of experience-based health states. The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of elicitation procedure on experience-based health state values elicited by the TTO method.
156 Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes participated in face-to-face interviews with an open-ended or an iteration-based TTO task. The association between the type of TTO task and the valuation of health states was investigated through multiple linear regression analyses. A modified open-ended TTO task was also developed (n = 33) to test whether different phrasings of open-ended TTO tasks influence TTO values.
Higher TTO values were observed in the original open-ended TTO task compared to the iteration-based task, which indicates that the elicitation procedure influences the valuation of health states. When the modified open-ended task was introduced, the difference between the two elicitation procedures was no longer statistically significant, suggesting that the phrasing and/or visual presentation of the TTO task may influence the valuation of health states.
The choice of elicitation procedure as well as the description of experience-based TTO tasks may influence the valuation of health states. Further research is warranted, also in other cultural contexts, to further explore these findings.
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Torrance, G. W., Thomas, W. H., & Sackett, D. L. (1972). A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Research, 7(2), 118.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: London. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword. Assessed 26 June 2018.
The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV). (2017). General guidelines for economic evaluations from the Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLVAR 2017:1). Stockholm: The Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency. https://www.tlv.se/download/18.467926b615d084471ac3230c/1510316374332/TLVAR_2017_1.pdf. Assessed 26 June 2018.
Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108.
Badia, X., Roset, M., Herdman, M., & Kind, P. (2001). A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Medical Decison Making, 21(1), 7–16.
Greiner, W., Claes, C., Busschbach, J. J., & von der Schulenburg, J. M. (2005). Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. European Journal of Health Economics, 6(2), 124–130.
Liu, G. G., Wu, H., Li, M., Gao, C., & Luo, N. (2014). Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value in Health, 17(5), 597–604.
Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., Nishimura, S., Sakai, I., Fukuda, T., et al. (2002). Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: The case of Japan. Health Economics, 11(4), 341–353.
Burstrom, K., Sun, S., Gerdtham, U. G., Henriksson, M., Johannesson, M., Levin, L. A., et al. (2014). Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 431–442.
Wittrup-Jensen, K. U., Lauridsen, J., Gudex, C., & Pedersen, K. M. (2009). Generation of a Danish TTO value set for EQ-5D health states. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 37(5), 459–466.
Lamers, L. M., McDonnell, J., Stalmeier, P. F., Krabbe, P. F., & Busschbach, J. J. (2006). The Dutch tariff: Results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Economics, 15(10), 1121–1132.
Bleichrodt, H., & Johannesson, M. (1997). Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: Experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. Journal of Health Economics, 16(2), 155–175.
Bleichrodt, H., & Johannesson, M. (1997). The validity of QALYs: An experimental test of constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence. Medical Decision Making, 17(1), 21–32.
Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics, 5(1), 1–30.
Lundberg, L., Johannesson, M., Isacson, D. G., & Borgquist, L. (1999). Health-state utilities in a general population in relation to age, gender and socioeconomic factors. European Journal of Public Health, 9(3), 211–217.
Bardage, C., Isacson, D., Ring, L., & Bingefors, K. (2003). A Swedish population-based study on the relationship between the SF-36 and health utilities to measure health in hypertension. Blood Pressure, 12(4), 203–210.
Burstrom, K., Johannesson, M., & Diderichsen, F. (2006). A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy, 76(3), 359–370.
Dolan, P. (2011). Thinking about it: Thoughts about health and valuing QALYs. Health Economics, 20(12), 1407–1416.
Devlin, N. J., Shah, K. K., Feng, Y., Mulhern, B., & van Hout, B. (2018). Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Economics, 27(1), 7–22.
Shiroiwa, T., Ikeda, S., Noto, S., Igarashi, A., Fukuda, T., Saito, S., et al. (2016). Comparison of value set based on DCE and/or TTO data: Scoring for EQ-5D-5L health states in Japan. Value in Health, 19(5), 648–654.
Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., Bansback, N., Bryan, S., Ohinmaa, A., et al. (2016). A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Medical Care, 54(1), 98–105.
Versteegh, M. M., Vermeulen, K. M., Evers, S. M., de Wit, G. A., Prenger, R., & Stolk, E. A. (2016). Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value in Health, 19(4), 343–352.
Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). Valuing health states: A comparison of methods. Journal of Health Economics, 15(2), 209–231.
Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1998). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95(3), 371–384.
Huber, J., Ariely, D., & Fischer, G. (2002). Expressing preferences in a principal-agent task: A comparison of choice, rating, and matching. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(25), 66–90.
Sumner, W., & Nease, R. F., Jr. (2001). Choice-matching preference reversals in health outcome assessments. Medical Decision Making, 21(3), 208–218.
Attema, A. E., & Brouwer, W. B. (2013). In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 126–140.
Mossey, J. M., & Shapiro, E. (1982). Self-rated health: A predictor of mortality among the elderly. American Journal of Public Health, 72(8), 800–808.
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20(10), 1727–1736.
Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17(4), 445–453.
White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 48, 817–838.
Cubi-Molla, P., Shah, K., & Burstrom, K. (2018). Experience-based values: A framework for classifying different types of experience in health valuation research. The Patient, 11(3), 253–270.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061.
Attema, A. E., Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Versteegh, M. M., & Stolk, E. A. (2013). Time trade-off: One methodology, different methods. European Journal of Health Econ, 14(Suppl 1), S53–S64.
Weinberger, M., Oddone, E. Z., Samsa, G. P., & Landsman, P. B. (1996). Are health-related quality-of-life measures affected by the mode of administration? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(2), 135–140.
Bowling, A., Bond, M., Jenkinson, C., & Lamping, D. L. (1999). Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey questionnaire: Which normative data should be used? Comparisons between the norms provided by the Omnibus Survey in Britain, the Health Survey for England and the Oxford Healthy Life Survey. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 21(3), 255–270.
van Nooten, F., Busschbach, J., van Agthoven, M., van Exel, J., & Brouwer, W. (2018). What should we know about the person behind a TTO? European Journal of Health Economics, 19(9), 1207–1211.
Sun, S., Chen, J., Johannesson, M., Kind, P., Xu, L., Zhang, Y., et al. (2011). Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socio-economic status, from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Quality of Life Research, 20(3), 309–320.
Luo, N., Li, M., Chevalier, J., Lloyd, A., & Herdman, M. (2013). A comparison of the scaling properties of the English, Spanish, French, and Chinese EQ-5D descriptive systems. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 2237–2243.
Jin, X., Liu, G. G., Luo, N., Li, H., Guan, H., & Xie, F. (2016). Is bad living better than good death? Impact of demographic and cultural factors on health state preference. Quality of Life Research, 25(4), 979–986.
Yin, Z., Li, J., Ma, K., Ning, X., Chen, H., Fu, H., et al. (2017). Development of palliative care in China: A tale of three cities. The Oncologist, 22(11), 1362–1367.
Zhuo, L., Xu, L., Ye, J., Sun, S., Zhang, Y., Burstrom, K., et al. (2018). Time trade-off value set for EQ-5D-3L based on a nationally representative Chinese population survey. Value in Health, 21(11), 1330–1337.
Hao, J. (2010). A discussion about effects of modern life ethics of the traditional view of life and death in China. Medicine and Philosophy (Humanistic & Social Medicine Edition), 31(8), 19–22.
- Influence of elicitation procedure and phrasing on health state valuations in experience-based time trade-off tasks among diabetes patients in China
- Springer International Publishing
Quality of Life Research
An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation - An Official Journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649