Comparison of Value Set Based on DCE and/or TTO Data: Scoring for EQ-5D-5L Health States in Japan

Value in Health

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 648-654

  Shiroiwa, Takeru ^a   Ikeda, Shunya ^b   Noto, Shinichi ^c   Igarashi, Ataru ^d   Fukuda, Takashi ^a   Saito, Shinya ^e   Shimozuma, Kojiro ^f  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Japan)

^b INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND WELFARE   (Japan)

^c NIIGATA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND WELFARE   (Japan)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^e OKAYAMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^f RITSUMEIKAN UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

discrete choice experiment (DCE); EQ 5D 5L; preference; time trade off (TTO)

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPOSITE TIME TRADE OFF; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; EUROQOL FIVE DIMENSIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; JAPAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; YOUNG ADULT; DECISION MAKING; PATIENT PREFERENCE; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; JAPAN; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; QUALITY OF LIFE; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84964577643     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.03.1834     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. [1] Brooks, R., EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37 (1996), 53–72.
2. [2] Szende, A., Oppe, M., Devlin, N., EQ-5D Value Sets: Inventory, Comparative Review and User Guide. 2007, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
3. [3] Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ 11 (2002), 341–353.
4. [4] Brauer, C.A., Rosen, A.B., Greenberg, D., Neumann, P.J., Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 9 (2006), 213–218.
5. [5] van Hout, B., Janssen, M.F., Feng, Y.S., et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 15 (2012), 708–715.
6. [6] Janssen, B.M., Oppe, M., Versteegh, M.M., Stolk, E.A., Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity. Eur J Health Econ, 14(Suppl. 1), 2013 S5–13.
7. [7] Bansback, N., Brazier, J., Tsuchiya, A., Anis, A., Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ 31 (2012), 306–318.
8. [8] Pullenayegum, E., Xie, F., Scoring the 5-level EQ-5D: can latent utilities derived from a discrete choice model be transformed to health utilities derived from time tradeoff tasks?. Med Decis Making 33 (2013), 567–578.
9. [9] Xie, F., Pullenayegum, E., Gaebel, K., et al. Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best-worst scaling?. Eur J Health Econ 15 (2014), 281–288.
10. [10] Ikeda, S., Shiroiwa, T., Igarashi, I., et al. Developing a Japanese version of the EQ-5D-5L value set (in Japanese). J Natl Inst Public Health 64 (2015), 47–55.
11. [11] Viney, R., Norman, R., Brazier, J., et al. An Australian discrete choice experiment to value EQ-5D health states. Health Econ 23 (2014), 729–742.
12. [12] Rowen, D., Brazier, J., Van Hout, B., A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale. Med Decis Making 35 (2015), 328–340.
13. [13] Oppe, M., Devlin, N.J., van Hout, B., et al. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health 17 (2014), 445–453.
14. [14] Tilling, C., Devlin, N., Tsuchiya, A., Buckingham, K., Protocols for time tradeoff valuations of health states worse than dead: a literature review. Med Decis Making 30 (2010), 610–619.
15. [15] Dolan, P., Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35 (1997), 1095–1108.
16. [16] Robinson, A., Spencer, A., Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ 15 (2006), 393–402.
17. [17] Augustovski, F., Rey-Ares, L., Irazola, V., et al. Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: does it make any difference?. Eur J Health Econ 14:Suppl. 1 (2013), S25–S31.
18. [18] Devlin, N.J., Tsuchiya, A., Buckingham, K., Tilling, C., A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the “lead time” approach. Health Econ 20 (2011), 348–361.
19. [19] Attema, A.E., Versteegh, M.M., Oppe, M., et al. Lead time TTO: leading to better health state valuations?. Health Econ 22 (2013), 376–392.
20. [20] Devlin, N., Buckingham, K., Shah, K., et al. A comparison of alternative variants of the lead and lag time TTO. Health Econ 22 (2013), 517–532.
21. [21] Bliemer, M.C.J., Rose, J.M., Hess, S., Approximation of Bayesian efficiency in experimental choice designs. J Choice Model 1 (2008), 98–126.
22. [22] Luo, N., Li, M., Stolk, E.A., Devlin, N.J., The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework. Eur J Health Econ 14:Suppl. 1 (2013), S15–S24.
23. [23] Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Deverill, M., The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21 (2002), 271–292.
24. [24] Ramos-Goni, J.M., Rivero-Arias, O., Errea, M., et al. Dealing with the health state ׳dead׳ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L health states. Eur J Health Econ 14:Suppl. 1 (2013), S33–S42.
25. [25] Brazier, J.E., Yang, Y., Tsuchiya, A., Rowen, D.L., A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ 11 (2010), 215–225.
26. [26] Ramos-Goni JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Oppe M, et al. Valuation and modeling of EQ-5D-5L health states using a hybrid approach. Med Care [Epub ahead of print] December 17, 2014.
27. [27] Gu, Y., Norman, R., Viney, R., Estimating health state utility values from discrete choice experiments—a QALY space model approach. Health Econ 23 (2014), 1098–1114.