IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i7-8p875-885.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Re-revisiting the Utilities of Health States Worse than Dead: The Problem Remains

Author

Listed:
  • MichaÅ‚ Jakubczyk

Abstract

Background In valuation studies of the EQ-5D-5L instrument, the composite time tradeoff method (cTTO) is often used to elicit preferences. In cTTO, some health states are considered worse than dead (WTD) and are assigned negative utility values. However, these negative values correlate poorly with state severity, which suggests that cTTO is insufficiently sensitive. A recent threshold explanation has been offered to account for the lack of correlation: because the severity threshold beyond which a state is considered WTD differs between respondents, the correlation should be studied for individual respondents clustered by the number of WTD states. The results obtained in such a threshold approach were interpreted to disprove the insensitivity of the cTTO method. Aim To scrutinize the threshold explanation and test whether it indeed refutes the insensitivity of cTTO. Methods The study uses data from the EQ-5D-5L Polish valuation study, which includes cTTO responses from 1,510 participants, each of whom evaluated 10 EQ-5D-5L states. The correlation analysis and threshold approach are repeated to confirm the results from previous studies. The data are then modified in 2 contrasting ways. First, negative utilities are randomly reshuffled to test whether the threshold approach can capture cTTO insensitivity. Second, individual-level regressions are used to simulate negative values to ensure they correlate with severity at the individual respondent level, verifying whether the overall severity-utility correlation should be observed. Results First, reshuffling negative utilities does not change the results of the threshold approach. Hence, the threshold explanation fails to prove cTTO sensitivity. Second, when sensitivity was introduced on an individual level, a significant overall correlation between severity and negative utility arose. Conclusion cTTO is insensitive to severity for WTD states. Highlights For the composite time tradeoff method, the utility values of health states worse than dead correlate poorly with state severity, which suggests that cTTO has insufficient sensitivity. Recently, a so-called threshold explanation was offered for the lack of correlation. I show why the threshold explanation fails and why the composite time tradeoff is indeed insensitive for worse-than-dead states.

Suggested Citation

  • MichaÅ‚ Jakubczyk, 2023. "Re-revisiting the Utilities of Health States Worse than Dead: The Problem Remains," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 875-885, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:7-8:p:875-885
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231201147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231201147
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231201147?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. 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.
    2. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1977. "Social Experimentation, Truncated Distributions, and Efficient Estimation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(4), pages 919-938, May.
    3. Lidia Engel & Nick Bansback & Stirling Bryan & Mary M. Doyle-Waters & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2016. "Exclusion Criteria in National Health State Valuation Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(7), pages 798-810, October.
    4. Matthew Kennedy-Martin & Bernhard Slaap & Michael Herdman & Mandy Reenen & Tessa Kennedy-Martin & Wolfgang Greiner & Jan Busschbach & Kristina S. Boye, 2020. "Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1245-1257, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. S. A. Lipman & V. T. Reckers-Droog & M. Karimi & M. Jakubczyk & A. E. Attema, 2021. "Self vs. other, child vs. adult. An experimental comparison of valuation perspectives for valuation of EQ-5D-Y-3L health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1507-1518, December.
    2. Peasgood, Tessa & Bourke, Mackenzie & Devlin, Nancy & Rowen, Donna & Yang, Yaling & Dalziel, Kim, 2023. "Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 323(C).
    3. Michał Jakubczyk, 2023. "What if 0 is not equal to 0? Inter-personal health utilities anchoring using the largest health gains," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(7), pages 1217-1233, September.
    4. Jen-Yu Amy Chang & Chien-Ning Hsu & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Nan Luo & Hsiang-Wen Lin & Fang-Ju Lin, 2024. "Beyond 10-year lead-times in EQ-5D-5L: leveraging alternative lead-times in willingness-to-accept questions to capture preferences for worse-than-dead states and their implication," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(6), pages 1041-1055, August.
    5. Quader, Syed Manzur, 2017. "Differential effect of liquidity constraints on firm growth," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 20-29.
    6. Richard Huan Xu & Eliza Lai-yi Wong & Nan Luo & Richard Norman & Jens Lehmann & Bernhard Holzner & Madeleine T. King & Georg Kemmler, 2024. "The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(5), pages 889-901, July.
    7. Stefan A. Lipman & Liying Zhang & Koonal K. Shah & Arthur E. Attema, 2023. "Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 293-305, March.
    8. Adrian C. Darnell, 1994. "A Dictionary Of Econometrics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 118.
    9. Mathieu F. Janssen & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "General population normative data for the EQ-5D-3L in the five largest European economies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1467-1475, December.
    10. Emran, M. Shahe & Shilpi, Forhad, 2015. "Gender, Geography, and Generations: Intergenerational Educational Mobility in Post-Reform India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 362-380.
    11. Eymen Errais & Dhikra Bahri, 2016. "Is Standard Deviation a Good Measure of Volatility? the Case of African Markets with Price Limits," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 17(1), pages 145-165, May.
    12. Emran, M. Shahe & Greene, William H & Shilpi, Forhad, 2015. "When measure matters: coresident sample selection bias in estimating intergenerational mobility in developing countries," MPRA Paper 65920, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. M. Shahe Emran & William Greene & Forhad Shilpi, 2018. "When Measure Matters: Coresidency, Truncation Bias, and Intergenerational Mobility in Developing Countries," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 53(3), pages 589-607.
    14. Christine Brown & John Handley & James O'Day, 2015. "The Dividend Substitution Hypothesis: Australian Evidence," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(1), pages 37-62, March.
    15. Bart Hobijn & Carlos A. Medina-Durango, 2000. "Is Discrimination Due to a Coordination Failure?," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1758, Econometric Society.
    16. Thom Malone & Christian L. Redfearn, 2022. "To measure globally, aggregate locally: Urban land, submarkets, and biased estimates of the housing stock," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 50(3), pages 656-671, September.
    17. Ramesh K. S. Rao & Susan A. White, 1994. "The Dividend Payouts Of Private Firms: Evidence From Tax Court Decisions," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 17(4), pages 449-464, December.
    18. Börsch-Supan, Axel & Ferrari, Irene & Salerno, Luca, 2021. "Long-run health trends in Europe," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    19. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    20. He, Senhui & Fletcher, Stanley M. & Rimal, Arbindra, 2005. "Unwillingness to Consume Irradiated Beef and Unwillingness to Pay for Beef Irradiation," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 36(1), pages 1-8, March.

    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:43:y:2023:i:7-8:p:875-885. 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.