Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best–worst scaling?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Choice-based methods have been used widely in assessing healthcare programs. This study compared the binary discrete choice experiment (DCE) and the multiprofile case of best–worst scaling (BWS) in eliciting preferences for the EQ-5D-5L. Forty-eight EQ-5D-5L health states were selected using a Bayesian efficient design and grouped into 24 pairs for the DCE tasks and 8 sets for the BWS tasks (each set has three health states). A total of 100 participants completed 12 pairs and 8 sets in a random order. A probit regression model and ranked order logistic regression model were used to estimate the latent utilities from the DCE and BWS, respectively. Both tasks were well understood by the majority of participants. The DCE tasks were relatively easier and took a shorter time to complete. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the DCE was higher than that of the BWS. The variances associated with the latent utilities estimated from the DCE were larger than those from the BWS. The DCE is more feasible and reliable than the BWS in valuing the EQ-5D-5L. Future studies could focus on comparing the consistency and accuracy of these techniques in predicting the health utilities of the EQ-5D-5L.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Macran, S., Weatherly, H., Kind, P.: Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Med. Care 41(2), 218–231 (2003)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., Badia X.: Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life. Res. 20(10), 1727–1736 (2011). doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x

  3. Robinson, A., Spencer, A.: Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ. 15(4), 393–402 (2006)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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(3), 348–361 (2011)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Robinson S.: Test–retest reliability of health state valuation techniques: the time trade off and person trade off. Health Econ. 20(11), 1379–1391 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  6. van der Pol, M., Roux, L.: Time preference bias in time trade-off. Eur. J. Health Econ. 6(2), 107–111 (2005)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Attema, A.E., Versteegh, M.M., Oppe, M., Brouwer, W.B., Stolk, E.A.: Lead time tto: leading to better health state valuations? Health Econ. 22(4):376–392 (2013). doi:10.1002/hec.2804

  8. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.: Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Oxford University Press, Cambridge (UK) (2000)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Ryan, M., Gerard, K., Amaya–Amaya, M.: Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Springer, Dordrecht (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Rose, J.M., Bliemer, M.C.J.: Design of stated choice experiments: the state of practice and future challenges [Working paper ITS-WP-04-09]. Sydney: Institute of Transport Studies, The Australian Key Centre in Transport Management, The University of Sydney (2004)

  11. Cheraghi-Sohi, S., Hole, A.R., Mead, N., McDonald, R., Whalley, D., Bower, P., Roland, M.: What patients want from primary care consultations: a discrete choice experiment to identify patients’ priorities. Ann Fam Med 6(2), 107–115 (2008)

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Green, C., Gerard, K.: Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ. 18(8), 951–976 (2009)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lloyd, A., Doyle, S., Dewilde, S., Turk, F.: Preferences and utilities for the symptoms of moderate to severe allergic asthma. Eur J Health Econ 9(3), 275–284 (2008)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Flynn, T.N., Louviere, J.J., Peters, T.J., Coast, J.: Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 26(1), 171–189 (2007)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Louviere, J.J., Street, D., Burgess, L., Wasi, N., Islam, T., Marley, A.A.: Modeling the choices of individual decision makers by combining efficient choice experiment designs with exra preference information. J. Choice Model. 1(1), 128–163 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Marley, A.A.J., Louviere, J.J.: Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices. J. Math. Psychol. 49(6), 464–480 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  17. van Hout, B., Janssen, M.F., Feng, Y.S., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., Lloyd, A., Scalone, L., Kind, P., Pickard, A.S.: Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 15(5), 708–715 (2012)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The EuroQol Group (Rotterdam, The Netherlands) provided funding for this study but played no role in the design and conduct of the study, data collection or analysis, data interpretation or manuscript preparation and publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, St Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Feng Xie, Eleanor Pullenayegum & Kathryn Gaebel

  2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P1H1, Canada

    Feng Xie & Eleanor Pullenayegum

  3. Father Sean O’Sullivan Research Centre, St Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Eleanor Pullenayegum

  4. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Mark Oppe

  5. Department of Epidemiology (Unit HTA), University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Paul F. M. Krabbe

Authors
  1. Feng Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eleanor Pullenayegum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathryn Gaebel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark Oppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul F. M. Krabbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feng Xie.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 Health states included in the DCE
Full size table
Table 5 Health states included in BWS
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

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, 281–288 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0474-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0474-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation