IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i6p773-786.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing SF-6D Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Norman
  • Rosalie Viney
  • John Brazier
  • Leonie Burgess
  • Paula Cronin
  • Madeleine King
  • Julie Ratcliffe
  • Deborah Street

Abstract

Background. SF-6D utility weights are conventionally produced using a standard gamble (SG). SG-derived weights consistently demonstrate a floor effect not observed with other elicitation techniques. Recent advances in discrete choice methods have allowed estimation of utility weights. The objective was to produce Australian utility weights for the SF-6D and to explore the application of discrete choice experiment (DCE) methods in this context. We hypothesized that weights derived using this method would reflect the largely monotonic construction of the SF-6D. Methods . We designed an online DCE and administered it to an Australia-representative online panel ( n = 1017). A range of specifications investigating nonlinear preferences with respect to additional life expectancy were estimated using a random-effects probit model. The preferred model was then used to estimate a preference index such that full health and death were valued at 1 and 0, respectively, to provide an algorithm for Australian cost-utility analyses. Results . Physical functioning, pain, mental health, and vitality were the largest drivers of utility weights. Combining levels to remove illogical orderings did not lead to a poorer model fit. Relative to international SG-derived weights, the range of utility weights was larger with 5% of health states valued below zero. Conclusion s. DCEs can be used to investigate preferences for health profiles and to estimate utility weights for multi-attribute utility instruments. Australian cost-utility analyses can now use domestic SF-6D weights. The comparability of DCE results to those using other elicitation methods for estimating utility weights for quality-adjusted life-year calculations should be further investigated.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney & John Brazier & Leonie Burgess & Paula Cronin & Madeleine King & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street, 2014. "Valuing SF-6D Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 773-786, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:6:p:773-786
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13503499
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X13503499
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X13503499?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. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    2. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    3. Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "A Pilot Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Preferences for EQ-5D-5L Health States," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 287-298, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Madeleine T. King & Jane Hall & Emily Lancsar & Denzil Fiebig & Ishrat Hossain & Jordan Louviere & Helen K. Reddel & Christine R. Jenkins, 2007. "Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(7), pages 703-717, July.
    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. Gao, Ni & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas & Robinson, Suzanne & Norman, Richard, 2020. "Paid work, household work, or leisure? Time allocation pathways among women following a cancer diagnosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    2. Nicolet, Anna & Perraudin, Clémence & Krucien, Nicolas & Wagner, Joël & Peytremann-Bridevaux, Isabelle & Marti, Joachim, 2023. "Preferences of older adults for healthcare models designed to improve care coordination: Evidence from Western Switzerland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    3. Yiu, Hei Hang Edmund & Buckell, John & Petrou, Stavros & Stewart-Brown, Sarah & Madan, Jason, 2023. "Derivation of a UK preference-based value set for the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) to allow estimation of Mental Well-being Adjusted Life Years (MWALYs)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 327(C).
    4. Kathleen Manipis & Brendan Mulhern & Philip Haywood & Rosalie Viney & Stephen Goodall, 2023. "Estimating the willingness-to-pay to avoid the consequences of foodborne illnesses: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(5), pages 831-852, July.
    5. Marcel F. Jonker & Richard Norman, 2022. "Not all respondents use a multiplicative utility function in choice experiments for health state valuations, which should be reflected in the elicitation format (or statistical analysis)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 431-439, February.
    6. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).

    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. Arne Risa Hole & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2016. "Response Patterns in Health State Valuation Using Endogenous Attribute Attendance and Latent Class Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 212-224, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Richard Norman & Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber & Donna Rowen & John E. Brazier & David Cella & A. Simon Pickard & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Dennis Revicki & Madeleine T. King & On behalf of the Eu, 2019. "U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU‐C10D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1385-1401, December.
    4. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    5. Dennis A. Revicki & Madeleine T. King & Rosalie Viney & A. Simon Pickard & Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber & James W. Shaw & Fabiola Müller & Richard Norman, 2021. "United States Utility Algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multiattribute Utility Instrument Based on a Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 485-501, May.
    6. John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Helene Chevrou-Severac, 2017. "A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 21-31, December.
    7. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.
    10. Emily Lancsar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 697-716, July.
    11. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney, 2019. "One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 29-43, January.
    12. Damian Clarke & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana‐Domeque, 2021. "On the Value of Birth Weight," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(5), pages 1130-1159, October.
    13. Jing Wu & Shitong Xie & Xiaoning He & Gang Chen & Gengliang Bai & Da Feng & Ming Hu & Jie Jiang & Xiaohui Wang & Hongyan Wu & Qunhong Wu & John E. Brazier, 2021. "Valuation of SF-6Dv2 Health States in China Using Time Trade-off and Discrete-Choice Experiment with a Duration Dimension," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 521-535, May.
    14. Mandeville, Kate L. & Ulaya, Godwin & Lagarde, Mylène & Muula, Adamson S. & Dzowela, Titha & Hanson, Kara, 2016. "The use of specialty training to retain doctors in Malawi: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 109-118.
    15. Donna Rowen & Alexander Labeit & Katherine Stevens & Jackie Elliott & Brendan Mulhern & Jill Carlton & Hasan Basarir & John Brazier, 2018. "Estimating a Preference-Based Single Index Measuring the Quality-of-Life Impact of Self-Management for Diabetes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 699-707, August.
    16. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    17. Marcel F. Jonker & Richard Norman, 2022. "Not all respondents use a multiplicative utility function in choice experiments for health state valuations, which should be reflected in the elicitation format (or statistical analysis)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 431-439, February.
    18. Marcel F. Jonker & Arthur E. Attema & Bas Donkers & Elly A. Stolk & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2017. "Are Health State Valuations from the General Public Biased? A Test of Health State Reference Dependency Using Self‐assessed Health and an Efficient Discrete Choice Experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1534-1547, December.
    19. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Koonal Shah & Nick Bansback & Louise Longworth & Rosalie Viney, 2018. "How Should Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration Choice Sets Be Presented for the Valuation of Health States?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 306-318, April.
    20. Sullivan, Trudy & Hansen, Paul & Ombler, Franz & Derrett, Sarah & Devlin, Nancy, 2020. "A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing ‘dead’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).

    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:34:y:2014:i:6:p:773-786. 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.