IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i4p380-392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Manipulating the 5 Dimensions of the EuroQol Instrument: The Effects on Self-Reporting Actual Health and Valuing Hypothetical Health States

Author

Listed:
  • Aki Tsuchiya

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
    Department of Economics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Nick Bansback

    (School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada)

  • Arne Risa Hole

    (Department of Economics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Brendan Mulhern

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
    Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Haymarket, New South Wales, Australia)

Abstract

Background. The EQ-5D instrument has 5 dimensions. This article reports on the effects of manipulating a) the order in which the 5 dimensions are presented (appearing first v. last), b) splitting of the composite dimensions (“pain or discomfort†and “anxiety or depression†), and c) removing or “bolting off†1 of the 5 EQ-5D dimensions at a time. The effects were examined in 2 contexts: 1) self-reporting health and 2) health state valuations. Methods. Three different types of discrete choice experiments (DCE) including a duration attribute were designed. An online survey with 12 subtypes, each with 10 DCE tasks, was designed and completed by 2494 members of the UK general public. Results. Of the 3 manipulations in the self-reporting context, only b) splitting anxiety or depression had a significant effect. In the health state valuation context, b) splitting level 5 pain or discomfort (relative to pain) and splitting level 5 anxiety or depression (relative to anxiety) had significant effects as did c) bolting off dimensions. Conclusions. We find that the values given to certain health dimensions are sensitive to the way in which it is described and the other health dimensions presented. Of particular interest is the effect of splitting composite dimensions: a given EQ-5D(-5L) profile may mean different things depending on whether the profile is used to self-report one’s health or to value hypothetical states, so that the health state values of EQ-5D(-5L) in population tariffs may not correspond to the states that patients self-report themselves in.

Suggested Citation

  • Aki Tsuchiya & Nick Bansback & Arne Risa Hole & Brendan Mulhern, 2019. "Manipulating the 5 Dimensions of the EuroQol Instrument: The Effects on Self-Reporting Actual Health and Valuing Hypothetical Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 380-392, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:4:p:380-392
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19851049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19851049
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19851049?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. Schkade, David A. & Kleinmuntz, Don N., 1994. "Information Displays and Choice Processes: Differential Effects of Organization, Form, and Sequence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 319-337, March.
    2. Trine Kjær & Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Kristian Hart‐Hansen, 2006. "Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1217-1228, November.
    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. Boxebeld, Sander, 2024. "Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    2. McDonald, Rebecca & Mullett, Timothy L. & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2020. "Understanding the composite dimensions of the EQ-5D: An experimental approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(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. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    2. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    3. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2011. "Exploiting cut-off information to incorporate context effect: a discrete choice experiment on small fruits in a Alpine region," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114646, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Sophie E. Scharf & Monika Wiegelmann & Arndt Bröder, 2019. "Information search in everyday decisions: The generalizability of the attraction search effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 488-512, July.
    5. Liersch, Michael J. & McKenzie, Craig R.M., 2009. "Duration neglect by numbers--And its elimination by graphs," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 303-314, March.
    6. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2018. "The effect of attribute-alternative matrix displays on preferences and processing strategies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 113-132.
    7. Krucien, Nicolas & Ryan, Mandy & Hermens, Frouke, 2017. "Visual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 251-267.
    8. Teisl, Mario F. & Roe, Brian, 1998. "The Economics of Labeling: An Overview of Issues for Health and Environmental Disclosure," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 140-150, October.
    9. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    10. Jorien Veldwijk & Stella Maria Marceta & Joffre Dan Swait & Stefan Adriaan Lipman & Esther Wilhelmina Bekker-Grob, 2023. "Taking the Shortcut: Simplifying Heuristics in Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(4), pages 301-315, July.
    11. Elizabeth Kinter & Thomas Prior & Christopher Carswell & John Bridges, 2012. "A Comparison of Two Experimental Design Approaches in Applying Conjoint Analysis in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 279-294, December.
    12. Cook, Don Lloyd & Coupey, Eloise, 1998. "Consumer Behavior and Unresolved Regulatory Issues in Electronic Marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 231-238, March.
    13. Lange, Jens & Krahé, Barbara, 2014. "The effects of information form and domain-specific knowledge on choice deferral," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 92-104.
    14. Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien & Frouke Hermens, 2018. "The eyes have it: Using eye tracking to inform information processing strategies in multi‐attributes choices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 709-721, April.
    15. Mehdi Ammi & Christine Peyron, 2016. "Heterogeneity in general practitioners’ preferences for quality improvement programs: a choice experiment and policy simulation in France," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Robert W. Paterson & Kevin J. Boyle & Christopher F. Parmeter & James E. Neumann & Paul De Civita, 2008. "Heterogeneity in preferences for smoking cessation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1363-1377.
    17. Lien Nguyen & Hanna Jokimäki & Ismo Linnosmaa & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & Laurie Batchelder & Juliette Malley & Hui Lu & Peter Burge & Birgit Trukeschitz & Julien Forder, 2022. "Valuing informal carers’ quality of life using best-worst scaling—Finnish preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(3), pages 357-374, April.
    18. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    19. Aleksandra Torbica & Giovanni Fattore & Fabio Ayala, 2014. "Eliciting Preferences to Inform Patient-Centred Policies: the Case of Psoriasis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 209-223, February.
    20. Domino Determann & Ida J Korfage & Mattijs S Lambooij & Michiel Bliemer & Jan Hendrik Richardus & Ewout W Steyerberg & Esther W de Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Acceptance of Vaccinations in Pandemic Outbreaks: A Discrete Choice Experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.

    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:39:y:2019:i:4:p:380-392. 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.