An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states

Health Economics (United Kingdom)

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 729-742

  Viney, Rosalie ^a   Norman, Richard ^a   Brazier, John ^b   Cronin, Paula ^a   King, Madeleine T ^c   Ratcliffe, Julie ^d   Street, Deborah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Australia; cost utility analysis; Discrete Choice Experiment; EQ 5D

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DEATH; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EQ 5D; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; THEORY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRE; YOUNG ADULT;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHMS; AUSTRALIA; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84899978976     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.2953     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Akaike H,. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19: 716-723.
2. Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A,. 2012. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values. Journal of Health Economics 31: 306-318.
3. Bleichrodt H,. 2002. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Economics 11: 447-456. (Pubitemid 34752615)
4. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M,. 1997. The validity of QALYs: An experimental test of constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence. Medical Decision Making 17: 21-32. (Pubitemid 27020136)
5. Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J,. 1999. Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: When is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis? Journal of Health Economics 18: 681-708.
6. Bleichrodt N, Wakker P, Johannesson M,. 1997. Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 15: 107-114.
7. Bowling A,. 2005. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health 27: 281-291. (Pubitemid 41298086)
8. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A,. 2007. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
9. Coast J, Flynn TN, Salisbury C, Louviere J, Peters TJ,. 2006. Maximising responses to discrete choice experiments: A randomised trial. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 5: 249-260. (Pubitemid 46998482)
10. Craig BM, Busschbach JJV,. 2011. Revisiting united states valuation of EQ-5D states. Journal of Health Economics 30: 1057-1063.
11. Craig B, Busschbach J, Salomon JA,. 2009. Keep it simple: Ranking health states yields values similar to cardinal measurement approaches. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62: 296-305.
12. Dolan P,. 1997. Modelling valuations for euroqol health states. Medical Care 35: 1095-1108. (Pubitemid 127453463)
13. Dolan P, Jones-Lee M,. 1997. The time trade-off: A note on the effect of lifetime reallocation of consumption and discounting. Journal of Health Economics 16: 731-739. (Pubitemid 28046573)
14. Feeny D,. 2002. The utility approach to assessing population health. In Summary measures of population health: Concepts, ehtics, measurment and applications, Murray C, Salomon JA, Mathers C, Lopez A, (eds). WHO: Geneva.
15. Fiebig DG, Knox S, Viney R, Haas M, Street DJ,. 2011. Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products. Health Economics 20: 35-52.
16. Flynn T,. 2010. Using conjoint analysis to estimate health state values for cost-utility analysis: Issues to consider. PharmacoEconomics 28: 711-722.
17. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Marley AA, Coast J, Peters TJ,. 2008. Rescaling quality of life values from discrete choice experiments for use as QALYs: A cautionary tale. Population Health Metrics 6: 6.
18. Hall J, Fiebig DG, King MT, Hossain I, Louviere JJ,. 2006. What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Health Economics 25: 520-537.
19. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA,. 2001. A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQOL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine 33: 358-370. (Pubitemid 32675377)
20. Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S,. UK population norms for EQ-5D. University of York: York; 1999.
21. King MT, Hall J, Lancsar E, Fiebig D, Hossain I, Louviere J, et al,. 2007. Patient preferences for managing asthma: Results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Economics 16: 703-717. (Pubitemid 47096463)
22. McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, Tsuchiya A, Roberts J, O'Hagan A, et al,. 2006. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. Journal of Health Economics 25: 418-431.
23. McFadden D,. 1981. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In Structural analysis of discrete data with economic applications, Manski C, McFadden D, (eds). MIT Press: Boston.
24. Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, King M, Street D, Ratcliffe J,. 2009. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: A review and analysis. Value in Health 12: 1194-1200.
25. Norman R, King M, Clarke D, Viney R, Cronin P, Street D,. 2010. Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of on line and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task. Quality of Life Research 19: 499-508.
26. Pliskin J, Shepard D, Weinstein M,. 1980. Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Research 28 (1): 206-224. (Pubitemid 10457394)
27. Ratcliffe J, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Symonds T, Brown M,. 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 18: 1261-1276.
28. Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E,. 2011. Review and critique of health related multi attribute utility instruments. Research paper 64. Centre for Health Economcs, Monash University: Melbourne.
29. Salomon JA,. 2003. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: A model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Population Health Metrics 1: 12.
30. Schwarz GE,. 1978. Estimating the dimensions of a model. The Annals of Statistics 6: 461-464.
31. Spencer A,. 2003. The TTO method and procedural invariance. Health Economics 12: 655-668. (Pubitemid 37038361)
32. Stolk EA, Oppe M, Scalone L, Krabbe PFM,. 2010. Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: The case of the EQ-5D. Value in Health 13: 1005-1013.
33. Street DJ, Burgess L,. 2007. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. Wiley: Hoboken, New Jersey.
34. Tilling C, Devlin N, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K,. 2010. Protocols for time tradeoff valuations of health states worse than dead: A literature review. Medical Decision Making 30: 610-619.
35. 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: 341-353. (Pubitemid 34578418)
36. Viney R, Norman R, King MT, Cronin P, Street D, Knox S, et al,. 2011. Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value in Health 14: 928-936.
37. Wittenberg E, Prosser LA,. 2011. Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses: A framework for understanding who, why and what to do. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 9: 225-241.