IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v14y2016i1d10.1007_s40258-015-0197-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness

Author

Listed:
  • Donna Rowen

    (University of Sheffield)

  • John Brazier

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Anju Keetharuth

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Aki Tsuchiya

    (University of Sheffield
    University of Sheffield)

  • Clara Mukuria

    (University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Background Proposals for value-based assessment, made by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK, recommended that burden of illness (BOI) should be used to weight QALY gain. This paper explores some of the methodological issues in eliciting societal preferences for BOI. Aims This study explores the impact of mode of administration and framing in a survey for eliciting societal preferences for BOI. Methods A pairwise comparison survey with six arms was conducted online and via face-to-face interviews, involving two different wordings of questions and the inclusion/exclusion of pictures. Respondents were asked which of two patient groups they thought a publically funded health service should treat, where the groups varied by life expectancy without treatment, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) without treatment, survival gain from treatment, and HRQOL gain from treatment. Responses across different modes of administration, wording and use of pictures were compared using chi-squared tests and probit regression analysis controlling for respondent socio-demographic characteristics. Results The sample contained 371 respondents: 69 were interviewed and 302 completed the questionnaire online. There were some differences in socio-demographic characteristics across the online and interview samples. Online respondents were less likely to choose the group with higher BOI and more likely to treat those with a higher QALY gain, but there were no statistically significant differences by wording or the inclusion of pictures for the majority of questions. Regression analysis confirmed these results. Respondents chose to treat the group with larger treatment gain, but there was little support for treating the group with higher BOI. Respondents also preferred to treat the group with treatment gains in life expectancy rather than HRQOL. Conclusions Mode of administration did impact on responses, whereas question wording and pictures did not impact on responses, even after controlling for the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in the regression analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Anju Keetharuth & Aki Tsuchiya & Clara Mukuria, 2016. "Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 89-104, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-015-0197-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-015-0197-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-015-0197-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-015-0197-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    3. Stirling Bryan & Tracy Roberts & Chris Heginbotham & Alison McCallum, 2002. "QALY‐maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 679-693, December.
    4. Green, Colin, 2009. "Investigating public preferences on 'severity of health' as a relevant condition for setting healthcare priorities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2247-2255, June.
    5. Nord, Erik, 1993. "The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 227-238, August.
    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. Micaela Pinho & Anabela Botelho, 2018. "Inference Procedures to Quantify the Efficiency–Equality Trade-Off in Health from Stated Preferences: A Case Study in Portugal," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 503-513, August.
    2. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2018. "Valuing health at the end of life: A review of stated preference studies in the social sciences literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 39-50.
    3. Mandy Ryan & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Catriona Matheson & Christine Bond, 2020. "Survey modes comparison in contingent valuation: Internet panels and mail surveys," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 234-242, February.
    4. Verity Watson & Terry Porteous & Tim Bolt & Mandy Ryan, 2019. "Mode and Frame Matter: Assessing the Impact of Survey Mode and Sample Frame in Choice Experiments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(7), pages 827-841, October.
    5. Simon McNamara & John Holmes & Abigail K. Stevely & Aki Tsuchiya, 2020. "How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 275-285, March.
    6. Bae, Eun-Young & Lim, Min Kyoung & Lee, Boram & Bae, Green & Hong, Jihyung, 2023. "Public preferences in healthcare resource allocation: A discrete choice experiment in South Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(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. 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.
    2. Liz Morrell & Sarah Wordsworth & Sian Rees & Richard Barker, 2017. "Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 793-804, August.
    3. Jennifer Whitty & Emily Lancsar & Kylie Rixon & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Studies Reporting Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(4), pages 365-386, December.
    4. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    5. Erik Nord, 2015. "Cost-Value Analysis of Health Interventions: Introduction and Update on Methods and Preference Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 89-95, February.
    6. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    7. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    8. Nord, Erik & Johansen, Rune, 2014. "Concerns for severity in priority setting in health care: A review of trade-off data in preference studies and implications for societal willingness to pay for a QALY," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 281-288.
    9. Erik Nord & Rune Johansen, 2015. "Transforming EQ-5D utilities for use in cost–value analysis of health programs," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(3), pages 313-328, April.
    10. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2018. "Does a patient's health potential affect the social valuation of health services?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, April.
    11. Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Distributional Judgements in the Context of Economic Evaluation," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 38, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Bae, Eun-Young & Lim, Min Kyoung & Lee, Boram & Bae, Green & Hong, Jihyung, 2023. "Public preferences in healthcare resource allocation: A discrete choice experiment in South Korea," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    13. Franken, Margreet & Stolk, Elly & Scharringhausen, Tessa & de Boer, Anthonius & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2015. "A comparative study of the role of disease severity in drug reimbursement decision making in four European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 195-202.
    14. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    15. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    16. Matthijs M. Versteegh & Isaac Corro Ramos & Nasuh C. Buyukkaramikli & Amir Ansaripour & Vivian T. Reckers-Droog & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2019. "Severity-Adjusted Probability of Being Cost Effective," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(9), pages 1155-1163, September.
    17. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    19. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    20. Richard Norman & Brendan Mulhern & Emily Lancsar & Paula Lorgelly & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2023. "The Use of a Discrete Choice Experiment Including Both Duration and Dead for the Development of an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 427-438, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-015-0197-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.