Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: The case of the EQ-5D

Value in Health

Volumn 13, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1005-1013

  Stolk, Elly A ^a   Oppe, Mark ^a   Scalone, Luciana ^b,c   Krabbe, Paul F M ^d  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^c Center for Health Associated Research and Technology Assessment Foundation   (Italy)

^d RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

discrete choice modeling; EQ 5D; time trade off; utilities

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH STATUS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RATING SCALE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 78650104478     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00783.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
2. Krabbe PFM, Stalmeier PFM, Lamers LM, Busschbach van JJ,. Testing the interval-level measurement property of multi-item visual analogue scales. Qual Life Res 2006; 15: 1651-61.
3. Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M,. Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17: 151-65.
4. Salomon JA, Murray CJL,. A multi-method approach to measuring health-state valuations. Health Econ 2009; 15: 215-18.
5. Salomon JA,. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul Health Metr 2003; 1: 12.
6. Bryan S, Dolan P,. Discrete choice experiments in health economics. For better or for worse? Eur J Health Econ 2004; 5: 199-202.
7. Louviere JJ, Lancsar E,. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Econ Policy Law 2009; 4: 527-46.
8. McFadden D,. Economic choices. Am Econ Rev 2001; 91: 351-78.
9. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD,. Stated Choice Methods. Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
10. Ryan M,. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 535-46.
11. Ryan M, Netten A, Skatun D, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome: an application to social care for older people. J Health Econ 2006; 25: 927-44.
12. Farrar S, Ryan M, Ross D, et al. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Soc Sci Med 2000; 50: 63-75.
13. Hakim Z, Pathak DS,. Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling. Health Econ 1999; 8: 103-16.
14. Ratcliffe J, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, et al. 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 2009; 18: 1261-76.
15. McKenzie L, Cairns J, Osman L,. Symptom-based outcome measures for asthma: the use of discrete choice methods to assess patient preferences. Health Policy 2001; 57: 193-204.
16. McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J Health Econ 2006; 25: 418-31.
17. Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, McGhan WF, et al. Using conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences. Drug Inf J 1999; 33: 849-58.
18. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Marley AA, et al. Rescaling quality of life values from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: a cautionary tale. Popul Health Metr 2008; 6: 6.
19. Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N,. EQ-5D Value Sets: Inventory, Comparative Review and User Guide. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007.
20. Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PFM, et al. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ 2006; 15: 1121-32.
21. Dolan P,. Modeling valuations for the EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095-108.
22. Ferrini S, Scarpa R,. Designs with a-priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice-experiments: a Monte Carlo study. J Environ Econ Manage 2007; 53: 342-63.
23. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ,. The design of stated choice experiments: the state of practice and future challenges. Working paper ITS-WP-04-09. The University of Sydney: Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, 2004.
24. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ,. Stated preference experimental design strategies. In:, Hensher DA, Button K, eds. Transport Modelling (Second Ed.), Handbooks in Transport. 1, Oxford: Elsevier Science, 2007.
25. Train KE,. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
26. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ,. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005; 43: 203-20.
27. Thurstone LL,. A law of comparative judgments. Psychol Rev 1927; 34: 273-86.
28. Krabbe PFM,. Thurstone scaling as a measurement method to quantify subjective health outcomes. Med Care 2008; 46: 357-65.
29. Maydeu-Olivares A, Böckenholt U,. Structural equation modeling of paired-comparison and ranking data. Psychol Methods 2005; 10: 285-304.
30. Krabbe PFM, Salomon JA, Murray CJL,. Quantification of health states with rank-based nonmetric multidimensional scaling. Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 395-405.
31. Hensher DA, Greene WH,. The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 2003; 30: 133-76.
32. Rasch G,. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Expanded edition with foreword and afterword by B.D. Wright.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
33. Streiner DL, Norman GR,. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.