IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v25y2024i5d10.1007_s10198-023-01633-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Obtaining preference scores for an abbreviated self-completion version of the Teen-Addiction Severity Index (ASC T-ASI) to value therapy outcomes of systemic family interventions: a discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Saskia Schawo

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Renske Hoefman

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Vivian Reckers-Droog

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Liesbet Lawerman-van de Wetering

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Yifrah Kaminer

    (University of Connecticut)

  • Werner Brouwer

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

Background Systemic family interventions for adolescents with problems of substance use and/or delinquency are increasingly focused subject of economic evaluations. Treatment effects go beyond improvements in commonly measured health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The Teen-Addiction Severity Index (T-ASI) was identified as capable of capturing these broad outcomes. However, it lacks preference-based scores. An abbreviated self-completion version (ASC T-ASI) was created and validated, covering the T-ASI domains substance use, school, work, family, social relationships, justice, and mental health. This study aimed to obtain societal preference scores for the ASC T-ASI. Methods Preferences were elicited in a sample of the Dutch general adult population (n = 1500), using a web-based Discrete Choice Experiment. Choice tasks included two unlabeled alternatives with attributes and levels corresponding to the domains and levels of the ASC T-ASI. A pilot study (n = 106) informed priors, optimal presentation, and number of choice tasks applied in the main study. Data were analyzed using a mixed multinomial logit model. Results Preference scores were logically ordered, with lower scores for worse ASC T-ASI states. Scores were most influenced by reductions in problems concerning the domains substance use, mental health, justice, and family. Tariffs were calculated for each ASC T-ASI state, ranging from 0 (worst situation) to 1 (best situation). Conclusions The tariffs enable preference-based assessments of the broad effects of systemic family interventions for adolescents with problems of substance use and/or delinquency. The outcome reflects addiction-related rather than health-related utility and can be used next to generic HRQOL instruments in relevant economic evaluations. Given the source used for the preferences, interpretations and valuation of scores require attention.

Suggested Citation

  • Saskia Schawo & Renske Hoefman & Vivian Reckers-Droog & Liesbet Lawerman-van de Wetering & Yifrah Kaminer & Werner Brouwer & Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen, 2024. "Obtaining preference scores for an abbreviated self-completion version of the Teen-Addiction Severity Index (ASC T-ASI) to value therapy outcomes of systemic family interventions: a discrete choice ex," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(5), pages 903-913, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:25:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-023-01633-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01633-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-023-01633-3
    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/s10198-023-01633-3?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. Darnell, Adam J. & Schuler, Megan S., 2015. "Quasi-experimental study of Functional Family Therapy effectiveness for juvenile justice aftercare in a racially and ethnically diverse community sample," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 75-82.
    2. Ondřej Vojáček & Iva Pecáková, 2010. "Comparison of Discrete Choice Models for Economic Environmental Research," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2010(1), pages 35-53.
    3. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    4. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    5. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    6. Juan M. Ramos-Goñi & Mark Oppe & Elly Stolk & Koonal Shah & Simone Kreimeier & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Nancy Devlin, 2020. "International Valuation Protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 653-663, July.
    7. Paul Dolan & Jan Abel Olsen & Paul Menzel & Jeff Richardson, 2003. "An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 545-551, July.
    8. Vivian Reckers-Droog & Maartje Goorden & Yifrah Kaminer & Lieke van Domburgh & Werner Brouwer & Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen, 2020. "Presentation and validation of the Abbreviated Self Completion Teen-Addiction Severity Index (ASC T-ASI): A preference-based measure for use in health-economic evaluations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-12, September.
    9. Sandy Tubeuf & Eirini-Christina Saloniki & David Cottrell, 2019. "Parental Health Spillover in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Evidence from Self-Harming Adolescents in England," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 513-530, April.
    10. Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N. & Natarajan, Lucy & Sproston, Kerry & Lewis, Jane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J., 2008. "Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 874-882, September.
    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. Dolan, Paul & Kavetsos, Georgios & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2013. "Sick but satisfied: The impact of life and health satisfaction on choice between health scenarios," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 708-714.
    2. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. 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.
    4. Chikumbu, Edith & Katiti, Victor & Bunn, Christopher & Msoka, Elizabeth F. & Sichali, Junious & Yongolo, Nateiya Mmeta & McIntosh, Emma & Mmbaga, Blandina T. & Wyke, Sally & Coast, Joanna, 2024. "A more equitable approach to economic evaluation: Directly developing conceptual capability wellbeing attributes for Tanzania and Malawi," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 355(C).
    5. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    6. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "QALYs and Carers," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(12), pages 1015-1023, December.
    7. Nan Liu & Stacey R. Finkelstein & Margaret E. Kruk & David Rosenthal, 2018. "When Waiting to See a Doctor Is Less Irritating: Understanding Patient Preferences and Choice Behavior in Appointment Scheduling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 1975-1996, May.
    8. Huang, Li & Devlin, Nancy & Chen, Gang & Dalziel, Kim, 2024. "A happiness approach to valuing health states for children," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    9. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    10. Finch, Aureliano Paolo & Mulhern, Brendan, 2022. "Where do measures of health, social care and wellbeing fit within a wider measurement framework? Implications for the measurement of quality of life and the identification of bolt-ons," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Mónica Hernández Alava, 2012. "Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 715-729, June.
    13. Frauke Becker & Nana Anokye & Esther W de Bekker-Grob & Ailish Higgins & Clare Relton & Mark Strong & Julia Fox-Rushby, 2018. "Women’s preferences for alternative financial incentive schemes for breastfeeding: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, April.
    14. Huynh, Elisabeth & Coast, Joanna & Rose, John & Kinghorn, Philip & Flynn, Terry, 2017. "Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 114-128.
    15. Ryan, Mandy & Kinghorn, Philip & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Francis, Jill J., 2014. "Valuing patients' experiences of healthcare processes: Towards broader applications of existing methods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 194-203.
    16. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    17. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Donna Rowen, 2012. "Methods for Developing Preference-based Measures of Health," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. 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.
    20. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Adolescent; Substance abuse; Delinquency; Mental health; Economic evaluation; Preference-based measure; Discrete choice experiment; Preference scores;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
    • H51 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Health
    • H53 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Welfare Programs

    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:eujhec:v:25:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-023-01633-3. 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.