IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v25y2024i7d10.1007_s10198-023-01647-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring non-iterative time trade-off methods for valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states

Author

Listed:
  • Zhihao Yang

    (Guizhou Medical University
    Guizhou Medical University)

  • Kim Rand

    (Akershus University Hospital
    Maths in Health B.V)

  • Elly Stolk

    (EuroQol Research Foundation)

  • Jan Busschbach

    (Erasmus Medical Centrum)

  • Nan Luo

    (National University of Singapore)

Abstract

Introduction The composite time trade-off (cTTO) method is used as the primary method for valuing EQ-5D-5L health states, but it requires intensive interviewer training and stringent quality control, which increases the burden of conducting cTTO studies. In this study, two non-iterative variants of the TTO method, non-stopping TTO (nTTO) and open-ended TTO (oTTO), were tested head-to-head with the cTTO method aiming to reduce the administration burden. Methods 31 EQ-5D-5L health states from an orthogonal array was selected and valued by a general public sample in China. Data were collected by 7 interviewers with all interviewers performed an equal number of interviews using all three TTO methods. We compared the value distribution, logical consistency, administration burden, and modeling performance of these three TTO methods. Results In total, 422 participants participated in the valuation interviews, with 139 using the nTTO method, 140 using the oTTO method, and 143 using the cTTO method. Both oTTO and nTTO methods saved around 10 min for conducting an interview. The mean values of three methods were similar with each method showed different characteristics in their value distributions. cTTO outperformed the other two methods in terms of modeling performance. Discussion Both non-iterative TTO methods showed potential for valuing EQ-5D health states, although their data distributions and modeling performance were inferior to the cTTO method. The results of this study showed the potential of these two alternative non-iterative TTO methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhihao Yang & Kim Rand & Elly Stolk & Jan Busschbach & Nan Luo, 2024. "Exploring non-iterative time trade-off methods for valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(7), pages 1087-1094, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:25:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-023-01647-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01647-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-023-01647-x
    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/s10198-023-01647-x?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. Tara A. Lavelle & Milton C. Weinstein & Joseph P. Newhouse & Kerim Munir & Karen A. Kuhlthau & Lisa A. Prosser, 2019. "Parent Preferences for Health Outcomes Associated with Autism Spectrum Disorders," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 541-551, April.
    2. Mark Oppe & Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Koonal Shah & Juan M. Ramos‐Goñi & Nan Luo, 2016. "EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 993-1004, October.
    3. Zhihao Yang & Jan van Busschbach & Reinier Timman & M F Janssen & Nan Luo, 2017. "Logical inconsistencies in time trade-off valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states: Whose fault is it?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-10, 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. 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.
    2. Anne‐Laure Samson & Erik Schokkaert & Clémence Thébaut & Brigitte Dormont & Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Luchini & Carine Van de Voorde, 2018. "Fairness in cost‐benefit analysis: A methodology for health technology assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 102-114, January.
    3. Qingqing Chai & Zhihao Yang & Xiaoyan Liu & Di An & Jiangyang Du & Xiumei Ma & Kim Rand & Bin Wu & Nan Luo, 2024. "Valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states from cancer patients’ perspective: a feasibility study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(6), pages 915-924, August.
    4. Mihir Gandhi & Marcus Ang & Kelvin Teo & Chee Wai Wong & Yvonne Chung-Hsi Wei & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Mathieu F. Janssen & Nan Luo, 2020. "A vision ‘bolt-on’ increases the responsiveness of EQ-5D: preliminary evidence from a study of cataract surgery," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 501-511, June.
    5. Kristina Ludwig & J.-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg & Wolfgang Greiner, 2018. "German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 663-674, June.
    6. Johanna Vásquez & Sergio Botero, 2020. "Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Fredrick Dermawan Purba & Joke A. M. Hunfeld & Aulia Iskandarsyah & Titi Sahidah Fitriana & Sawitri Supardi Sadarjoen & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Jan Passchier & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2017. "The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L Value Set," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(11), pages 1153-1165, November.
    8. 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).
    9. Koonal K. Shah & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Simone Kreimeier & Nancy J. Devlin, 2020. "An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1091-1103, September.
    10. Andrew Lloyd & Kim Rand & Cleo Pike & Crispin Ellis, 2024. "Preference-based utility weights for the Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life Questionnaire (INQoL), with a focus on non-dystrophic myotonia (NDM)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(8), pages 1461-1469, November.
    11. Antony P. Martin & Enrico Ferri Grazzi & Claudia Mighiu & Manoj Chevli & Farrukh Shah & Louise Maher & Anum Shaikh & Aliah Sagar & Hayley Hubberstey & Bethany Franks & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi & Mark Oppe &, 2023. "Health state utilities for beta-thalassemia: a time trade-off study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 27-38, February.
    12. Phil McEwan & James Baker-Knight & Björg Ásbjörnsdóttir & Yunni Yi & Aimee Fox & Robin Wyn, 2023. "Disutility of injectable therapies in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus: general population preferences in the UK, Canada, and China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 187-196, March.
    13. Ruixuan Jiang & Thomas Kohlmann & Todd A. Lee & Axel Mühlbacher & James Shaw & Surrey Walton & A. Simon Pickard, 2021. "Increasing respondent engagement in composite time trade-off tasks by imposing three minimum trade-offs to improve data quality," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(1), pages 17-33, February.
    14. Brendan Mulhern & Yan Feng & Koonal Shah & Mathieu F. Janssen & Michael Herdman & Ben Hout & Nancy Devlin, 2018. "Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 699-713, June.
    15. Amanda Cole & Koonal Shah & Brendan Mulhern & Yan Feng & Nancy Devlin, 2018. "Valuing EQ-5D-5L health states ‘in context’ using a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 595-605, May.
    16. Aureliano Paolo Finch & Eva Gamper & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney & Bernhard Holzner & Madeleine King & Georg Kemmler, 2021. "Estimation of an EORTC QLU-C10 Value Set for Spain Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(9), pages 1085-1098, September.
    17. Zoltán Hermann & Márta Péntek & László Gulácsi & Irén Anna Kopcsóné Németh & Zsombor Zrubka, 2022. "Measuring the acceptability of EQ-5D-3L health states for different ages: a new adaptive survey methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(7), pages 1243-1255, September.
    18. Edward J. D. Webb & Paul Kind & David Meads & Adam Martin, 2024. "COVID-19 and EQ-5D-5L health state valuation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 117-145, February.
    19. Lisa A. Prosser & Eve Wittenberg, 2019. "Advances in Methods and Novel Applications for Measuring Family Spillover Effects of Illness," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 447-450, April.
    20. 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.

    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:7:d:10.1007_s10198-023-01647-x. 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.