Modelling the EuroQol data: A comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling

Health Economics

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 103-116

  Hakim, Zafar ^a   Pathak, Dev S ^b  

^a ROCHE BIOSCIENCE   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Conditional preference modelling; Discrete choice conjoint modelling; EuroQol

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ERROR; FEMALE; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVIEW; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; UNITED STATES;

AGED; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COST OF ILLNESS; EUROPE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HOSPITALS, VETERANS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0032920887     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199903)8:2<103::AID-HEC393>3.0.CO;2-E     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol - A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199-208.
2. Brooks, R. with The EuroQol Group. EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53-72.
3. Bonsel, G.J., Essink-Bot, M., van Hout, B.A. et al. EuroQol 1991 - the Rotterdam Survey: introduction. In: Bjork, S. (ed.) Discussion Paper No. 1. EuroQol Conference Proceedings - Lund, October 1991. IHE Working Paper 2. Lund, Sweden, 1992, 11-15.
4. Busschbach, J.J., Hessing, D.J. and de Charro, F.T. An empirical comparison of four measurements of quality of life: standard gamble, time trade-off, the EuroQol visual analog scale and the Rosser and Kind matrix. In: Sintonen, H. (ed.) EuroQol Conference Proceedings, Helsinki, October 1992. Discussion Paper No. 2, Kuopio University Publications E, Social Sciences 8, Kuopio, Finland, 1993, 41-53.
5. Krabbe, P.F.M., Essink-Bot, M. and Bonsel, G.J. On the equivalence of standard gamble and time trade-off in individual and collective judgement of health states. In: Busschbach, J.J., Bonsel, G.J., and de Charro, F.T. (eds.) EuroQol Plenary Meeting, Rotterdam 1993, 6-8 October, Discussion Papers. Department of Public Health, Institute for Medical Technology Assessment and Centre for Health Policy and Law, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1994, 7-24.
6. Ohinmaa, A., Sintonen, H. and Pekurinen, M. Comparing values produced by one-stage, two-stage and TTO valuation methods to standard EuroQol states. In: Busschbach, J.J., Bonsel, G.J. and de Charro, F.T. (eds.) EuroQol Plenary Meeting, Rotterdam 1993, 6-8 October, Discussion Papers. Department of Public Health, Institute for Medical Technology Assessment and Centre for Health Policy and Law, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1994, 37-50.
7. Pinto, J. Checking the interval properties of different scaling methods: application to some EuroQol health states. In: Badia, X., Herdman, M. and Segura, A. (eds.) EuroQol Plenary Meeting, Barcelona 1995, 3-6 October, Discussion Papers. Catalan Institute of Public Health, 1996, 197-202.
8. Williams, A. The measurement and valuation of health. Discussion Paper 136, The University of York, 1995.
9. Froberg, D.G. and Kane, R.L. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences - I: Measurement strategies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1989; 42: 345-354.
10. Veit, C.T. and Ware, J.E. Measuring health and health-care outcomes: issues and recommendations. In: Kane, R.L. and Kane, R.A. (eds.) Values and long term care. Lexington MA: Lexington Books, 1982, 233-259.
11. Cadman, D. and Goldsmith, C. Construction of social value or utility-based health indices: the usefulness of factorial experimental design plans. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1986; 39: 643-651.
12. Froberg, D.G. and Kane, R.L. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences - II: Scaling methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1989; 42: 459-471.
13. Nord, E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Social Science and Medicine 1992; 34: 559-569.
14. Feeny, D.H., Torrance, G.W. and Furlong, W.J. Health Utilities Index. In: Spilker, B. (ed.) Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials, 2nd edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996, 239-252.
15. Feeny, D.H., Furlong, W., Boyle, M. et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmaco Economics 1995; 7: 490-502.
16. Torrance, G.W., Furlong, W., Feeny, D. et al. Multi-attribute preference functions: Health Utilities Index. Pharmaco Economics 1995; 7: 503-520.
17. Torrance, G.W., Feeny, D.H., Furlong, W.J. et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Medical Care 1996; 34: 702-722.
18. Kaplan, R.M. and Anderson, J.P. The general health policy model: an integrated approach. In: Spilker, B. (ed.) Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials, 2nd edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996, 309-322.
19. Sintonen, H. The 15-D measure of health-related quality of life: reliability, validity, and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. Working Paper # 41, National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 1994.
20. Sintonen, H. The 15-D measure of health-related quality of life: II. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of its valuation system. Working Paper # 42, National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 1995.
21. Hawthorne, G. and Richardson, J. An Australian MAU/QALY instrument: rationale and preliminary results. Working Paper # 49, National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 1995.
22. Hawthorne, G., Osbourne, R., McNeil, H. et al. The Australian Multi-attribute Utility (AMAU) construction and initial evaluation. Working Paper # 56, National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 1996.
23. For a description of the different types of preference measurement strategies, see Froberg, D.G. and Kane, R.L. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1989; 42: 345-354; and Fischer, G.W. Decision Sciences 1979; 10: 451-479.
24. For a description of the different types of preference measurement strategies, see Froberg, D.G. and Kane, R.L. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1989; 42: 345-354; and Fischer, G.W. Decision Sciences 1979; 10: 451-479.
25. Fischer, G.W. Utility models for multiple objective decisions: do they accurately represent human preferences? Decision Sciences 1979; 10: 451-479.
26. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1976.
27. Torrance, G.W., Boyle, M.H. and Horwood, S.P. Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Research 1982; 30: 1043-1069.
28. Van Hout, B.A. and McDonnell, J. Estimating a parametric relationship between health description and health valuation using the EuroQol. In: Bjork, S. (ed.) Discussion Paper No. 1. EuroQol Conference Proceedings - Lund, October 1991. IHE Working Paper 1992; 2, Lund, Sweden, 1992, 45-59.
29. Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P. et al. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Discussion Paper 138, The University of York, 1995.
30. Torrance, G.W. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. Journal of Health Economics 1986; 5: 1-30.
31. Mundt, J.C. Computer-based preference models for generic multidimensional problem sets. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 1989; 21: 121-124.
32. In contrast to 'corner states', these states were not restricted to having only one attribute level at its worst and others at their best. Further details about these multidimensional health states are provided in Appendix A.
33. Louviere, J.J. and Hensher, D.A. Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling. Transportation Research Record 1983; 890: 11-17.
34. Metegrano, M. (ed.) CBC System, Version 1.0. Evanston, USA: Sawtooth Software, Inc., 1993.
35. Hensher, D.A. and Johnson, L.W. Applied discrete-choice modelling. London, UK: Croom-Helm, 1981.
36. Louviere, J.J. and Woodworth, G.G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research 1983; 20: 350-367.
37. Louviere, J.J. and Hensher, D.A. Using discrete choice models with experimental design data to forecast consumer demand for a unique cultural event. Journal of Consumer Research 1983; 10: 348-361.
38. Louviere, J.J. Integrating conjoint and functional measurement with discrete choice theory: an experimental design approach. In: Bagozzi, R.P. and Tybout, A.M. (eds.) Advances in consumer research, Vol. 10. 1983, 151-156.
39. Batsell, R.R. and Louviere, J.J. Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters 1993; 2: 199-214.
40. Bunch, D.S. and Batsell, R.R. A Monte Carlo comparison of estimators for the multinomial logit model. Journal of Marketing Research 1989; 26: 56-68.
41. Hosmer, D.W. and Lemeshow, S. Applied logistic regression. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1989.
42. Furlong, W., Feeny, D., Torrance, G.W. et al. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. Working Paper 90-9, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Mc-Master University, Hamilton, Canada, 1990.
43. Laskey, K.B. and Fischer, G.W. Estimating utility functions in the presence of response error. Management Science 1987; 33: 965-980.
44. Krzysztofowicz, R. and Duckstein, L. Assessment errors in multiattribute utility functions. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance 1980; 26: 326-348.
45. Dolan, P. and Kind, P. Modelling the EuroQol Data: some preliminary results. In: Busschbach, J.J., Bonsel, G.J. and de Charro, F.T. (eds.) EuroQol Plenary Meeting, Rotterdam 1993, 6-8 October, Discussion Papers. Department of Public Health, Institute for Medical Technology Assessment and Centre for Health Policy and Law, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1994, 25-35.
46. Dolan, P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. In: O'Hanlon, M. and Buxton, M. (eds.) EuroQol Conference Proceedings, London, October 1994. HERG Research Report No. 20, Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, 1995, 41-74.
47. Abdalla, M. and Russell, I. Tariffs for the EuroQol health states based on modelling the individual VAS and TTO data of the York survey. In: O'Hanlon, M. and Buxton, M. (eds.) EuroQol Conference Proceedings, London, October 1994. HERG Research Report No. 20, Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, 1995, 75-91.
48. Krabbe, P., Bonsel, G. and Essink-Bot, M. Modelling: multiple classification analyse and logit transformation. In: O'Hanlon, M. and Buxton, M. (eds.) EuroQol Conference Proceedings, London, October 1994. HERG Research Report No. 20, Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, 1995, 93-107.
49. Ohinmaa, A., Eija, H. and Sintonen, H. Modelling EuroQol values of the Finnish adult population. In: Badia, X., Herdman, M. and Segura, A. (eds.) EuroQol Plenary Meeting, Barcelona 1995, 3-6 October, Discussion Papers. Catalan Institute of Public Health, 1996, 67-76.
50. Rue, M. and Badia, X. The Spanish EuroQol tariff: results from the Catalan health survey based on self-rated health. In: Badia, X., Herdman, M. and Segura, A. (eds.) EuroQol Plenary Meeting, Barcelona 1995, 3-6 October, Discussion Papers. Catalan Institute of Public Health, 1996, 77-98.
51. Johnson, J.A., Coons, S.J., Ergo, A. et al. Valuation of EuroQol (EQ-5D) health states in an adult US sample. Pharmaco Economics 1998; 13: 421-433.
52. This 'N3' term is indicative of any of the dimensions being at their most severe levels, and can conceptually be interpreted as reflecting the greater disutility associated with 'extreme problems'.
53. Elrod, T., Louviere, J.J. and Davey, K.S. An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models. Journal of Marketing Research 1992; 29: 368-377.
54. Bonsel, G. One tariff for the EuroQol: methodological issues relevant for the modelling of EuroQol data. In: O'Hanlon, M. and Buxton, M. (eds.) EuroQol Conference Proceedings, London, October 1994. HERG Research Report No. 20, Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, 1995, 25-40.
55. Ohinmaa, A. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states: comparison of three tariff systems based on the data collected in the University of York. In: O'Hanlon, M. and Buxton, M. (eds.) EuroQol Conference Proceedings, London, October 1994. HERG Research Report No. 20, Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, Uxbridge, 1995, 109-117.
56. Krabbe, P.F.M., de Charro, F., Essink-Bot, M. et al. Issues in the harmonization of valuation and modelling: a research agenda. In: Badia, X., Herdman, M. and Segura, A. (eds.) EuroQol Plenary Meeting, Barcelona 1995, 3-6 October, Discussion Papers. Catalan Institute of Public Health, 1996, 45-55.
57. Green, P.E. and Srinivasan, V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing 1990; 54: 3-19.
58. Louviere, J.J. Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments, and external validity. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 1988; 22: 93-119.