IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i5p610-619.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protocols for Time Tradeoff Valuations of Health States Worse than Dead: A Literature Review

Author

Listed:
  • Carl Tilling

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom, c.tilling@sheffield.ac.uk)

  • Nancy Devlin

    (Office of Health Economics, London, United Kingdom)

  • Aki Tsuchiya

    (Department of Economics and the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom)

  • Ken Buckingham

    (Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, New Zealand)

Abstract

Background. The time tradeoff (TTO) method of preference elicitation allows respondents to value a state as worse than dead, generally either through the Torrance protocol or the Measurement and Valuation of Health (MVH) protocol. Both of these protocols have significant weaknesses: Valuations for states worse than dead (SWD) are elicited through procedures different from those for states better than dead (SBD), and negative values can be extremely negative. Purpose. To provide an account of the different TTO designs for SWD, to identify any alternatives to the MVH and Torrance approaches, and to consider the merits of the approaches identified. Methods. Medline was searched to identify all health state valuation studies employing TTO. The ways in which SWD were handled were recorded. Furthermore, to ensure that there are no unpublished but feasible TTO variants, the authors developed a theoretical framework for identifying all potential variants. Results. The search produced 593 hits, of which 218 were excluded. Of the remaining 375 articles, only 29 included protocols for SWD. Of these, 23 used the MVH protocol and 4 used the Torrance protocol. The other 2 used 1 protocol for SBD and SWD, one making use of lead time and the other using a 2-stage procedure with chaining. The systematic framework did not identify any alternatives to the Torrance and MVH protocols that were superior to the lead time approach. Conclusions. Few studies elicit values for SWD. The lead time approach is a potential alternative to the Torrance and MVH protocols. Key words: QALY; states worse than dead; health state valuation; preference elicitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Carl Tilling & Nancy Devlin & Aki Tsuchiya & Ken Buckingham, 2010. "Protocols for Time Tradeoff Valuations of Health States Worse than Dead: A Literature Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5), pages 610-619, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:5:p:610-619
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09357475
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09357475
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X09357475?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claire Gudex, 1994. "Time trade-off user manual: props and self-completion methods," Working Papers 020cheop, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    2. Robinson, Angela & Dolan, Paul & Williams, Alan, 1997. "Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: What lies behind the numbers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1289-1297, October.
    3. repec:bla:ausecr:v:37:y:2004:i:1:p:62-88 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jose Luis Pinto Prades & Eva Rodriguez Miguez, 2011. "The Lead Time Trade-Off: The Case Of Health States Better Than Death," Working Papers 11.10, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    2. Bas Janssen & Mark Oppe & Matthijs Versteegh & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 5-13, July.
    3. Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman & John Brazier & Paula Cronin & Madeleine T. King & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street, 2014. "An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment To Value Eq‐5d Health States," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(6), pages 729-742, June.
    4. Federico Augustovski & Lucila Rey-Ares & Vilma Irazola & Mark Oppe & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: does it make any difference?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 25-31, July.
    5. Arthur E. Attema & Matthijs M. Versteegh & Mark Oppe & Werner B. F. Brouwer & Elly A. Stolk, 2013. "Lead Time Tto: Leading To Better Health State Valuations?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 376-392, April.
    6. Matthijs Versteegh & Arthur Attema & Mark Oppe & Nancy Devlin & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Time to tweak the TTO: results from a comparison of alternative specifications of the TTO," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 43-51, July.
    7. Nancy J. Devlin & Aki Tsuchiya & Ken Buckingham & Carl Tilling, 2011. "A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 348-361, March.
    8. Stefan A. Lipman & Arthur E. Attema & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2022. "Correcting for discounting and loss aversion in composite time trade‐off," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(8), pages 1633-1648, August.
    9. Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney, 2012. "Deriving utility weights for the EQ-5D-5L using a discrete choice experiment. CHERE Working Paper 2012/01," Working Papers 2012/01, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    10. Nan Luo & Minghui Li & Elly Stolk & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 15-24, July.
    11. Versteegh, MM & Attema, AE & Oppe, M & Devlin, NJ & Stolk, EA, 2012. "Time to tweak the TTO. But how?," MPRA Paper 37989, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Nicolas A. Menzies & Joshua A. Salomon, 2011. "Non‐monotonicity in the episodic random utility model," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(12), pages 1523-1531, December.
    13. Liv Ariane Augestad & Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen & Knut Stavem, 2012. "Impact of Transformation of Negative Values and Regression Models on Differences Between the UK and US EQ-5D Time Trade-Off Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1203-1214, December.
    14. Liv Augestad & Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Ivar Kristiansen & Knut Stavem, 2012. "Impact of Transformation of Negative Values and Regression Models on Differences Between the UK and US EQ-5D Time Trade-Off Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1203-1214, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McTaggart-Cowan, Helen & Tsuchiya, Aki & O'Cathain, Alicia & Brazier, John, 2011. "Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(11), pages 1904-1912, June.
    2. Craig., Benjamin M. & Busschbach, Jan J.V., 2011. "Revisiting United States valuation of EQ-5D states," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 1057-1063.
    3. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli & John E. Brazier & Donna Rowen & Michael Barkham, 2013. "Estimating a Preference-Based Index from the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation–Outcome Measure (CORE-OM)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 381-395, April.
    4. Benjamin M. Craig & Sulabha Ramachandran, 2006. "Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 835-848, August.
    5. Craig, Benjamin M. & Oppe, Mark, 2010. "From a different angle: A novel approach to health valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 169-174, January.
    6. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132, October.
    7. Mônica Viegas Andrade & Kenya Noronha & Paul Kind & Carla de Barros Reis & Lucas Resende de Carvalho, 2016. "Logical Inconsistencies in 3 Preference Elicitation Methods for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 242-252, February.
    8. Nancy J. Devlin & Aki Tsuchiya & Ken Buckingham & Carl Tilling, 2011. "A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 348-361, March.
    9. Karimi, M. & Brazier, J. & Paisley, S., 2017. "How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 80-88.
    10. Devlin, N. & Tsuchiya, A. & Buckingham, K. & Tilling, C., 2009. "A uniform Time Trade Off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the ‘lead time’ approach," Working Papers 09/08, Department of Economics, City University London.
    11. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    12. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    13. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    14. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    16. Jose L Burgos & Thomas L Patterson & Joshua S Graff-Zivin & James G Kahn & M Gudelia Rangel & M Remedios Lozada & Hugo Staines & Steffanie A Strathdee, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness of Combined Sexual and Injection Risk Reduction Interventions among Female Sex Workers Who Inject Drugs in Two Very Distinct Mexican Border Cities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    17. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    18. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    19. Kim Jeong & John Cairns, 2013. "Review of economic evidence in the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, December.
    20. Fleurbaey, Marc & Zuber, Stéphane, 2017. "Fair management of social risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 666-706.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:5:p:610-619. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.