Valuing SF-6D health states using a discrete choice experiment

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 773-786

  Norman, Richard ^a   Viney, Rosalie ^a   Brazier, John ^b   Burgess, Leonie ^a   Cronin, Paula ^a   King, Madeleine ^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; Economic evaluation; Quality of life valuation; SF 6D

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; AUSTRALIA; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; SOCIOECONOMICS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHMS; AUSTRALIA; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84907046623     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13503499     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-83.
2. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220-33.
3. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preferencebased measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2): 271-92.
4. Brazier JE, Fukuhara S, Roberts J, et al. Estimating a preferencebased index from the Japanese SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(12):1323-31.
5. Goncxalves Campolina A, Bruscato Bortoluzzo A, Bosi Ferraz M, Mesquita Ciconelli R. Validity of the SF-6D index in Brazilian patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2009; 27(2):237-45.
6. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2007.
7. McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, et al. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. J Health Econ. 2006;25(3):418-31.
8. Salomon JA. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Population Health Metrics. 2003;1(1):12.
9. Craig B, Busschbach J, Salomon JA. Keep it simple: ranking health states yields values similar to cardinal measurement approaches. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:296-305.
10. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1974. p 105-42.
11. McFadden D. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In: Manski C, McFadden D, eds. Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Economic Applications. Boston, MA: MIT Press; 1981. p 422-34.
12. Ratcliffe J, Flynn T, Terlich F, Brazier J, Stevens K, 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. 2012;30(8):713-27.
13. Hall J, Fiebig DG, King MT, Hossain I, Louviere JJ. What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. J Health Econ. 2006;25(3):520-37.
14. King MT, Hall J, Lancsar E, et al. Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 2007;16(7):703-17.
15. Stolk EA, Oppe M, Scalone L, Krabbe PFM. Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2010;13(8):1005-13.
16. Flynn T. Using conjoint analysis to estimate health state values for cost-utility analysis: issues to consider. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(9):711-22.
17. Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Anis A. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012;31:306-18.
18. Viney R, Norman R, Brazier J, et al. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states [published online 13 June 2013]. Health Econ.
19. 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. 2013;11(3):287-98.
20. Bleichrodt N, Wakker P, Johannesson M. Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. J Risk Uncertain. 1997;15(2):107-14.
21. Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095-108.
22. Kuhfeld WF. Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques (MR-2010). Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 2010.
23. Rose J. "The usefulness of Bayesian optimal designs for discrete choice experiments" by R. Kessels, B. Jones, P. Goos and M. Vandebroek. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry. 2011;27:193-6.
24. Street DJ, Burgess L. The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods (Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2007.
25. Coast J, Flynn TN, Salisbury C, Louviere J, Peters TJ. Maximising responses to discrete choice experiments: a randomised trial. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2006;5(4):249-60.
26. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(8):661-77.
27. Burgess L, Street DJ, Wasi N. Comparing designs for choice experiments: a case study. J Stat Theory Pract. 2011;5(1):25-46.
28. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. The validity of QALYs: an experimental test of constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(1):21-32.
29. Fryback DG, Lawrence WF Jr. Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think: a problem with defining quality-of-life adjustments. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(3):276-84.
30. Viney R, Norman R, King MT, et al. Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value Health. 2011;14:928-36.
31. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr. 1974;19(6):716-23.
32. Schwarz GE. Estimating the dimensions of a model. Ann Stat. 1978;6(2):461-4.
33. Hole AR. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ. 2007;16:827-40.
34. Kharroubi SA, Brazier JE, Roberts J, O'Hagan A. Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. J Health Econ. 2007;26(3):597-612.
35. Wittenberg E, Prosser LA. Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses: a framework for understanding who, why and what to do. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(4):225-41.
36. Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxford). 2005; 27(3):281-91.
37. Norman R, King M, Clarke D, Viney R, Cronin P, Street D. Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of on line and face-toface administration of a time trade-off task. Qual Life Res. 2010;19: 499-508.