IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v38y2020i8d10.1007_s40273-020-00913-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing the AD-5D Dementia Utility Instrument: An Estimation of a General Population Tariff

Author

Listed:
  • Tracy A. Comans

    (University of Queensland
    NHMRC Partnership Centre on Dealing with Cognitive and Related Functional Decline in Older People)

  • Kim-Huong Nguyen

    (University of Queensland
    NHMRC Partnership Centre on Dealing with Cognitive and Related Functional Decline in Older People)

  • Julie Ratcliffe

    (Flinders University)

  • Donna Rowen

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Brendan Mulhern

    (University of Technology Sydney)

Abstract

Objective This paper reports on the valuation of quality-of-life states in the Alzheimer’s Disease Five Dimensions (AD-5D) instrument in a representative sample of the general population in Australia using the discrete-choice experiment with duration (DCETTO) elicitation technique. Method A DCE with 200 choice sets of two quality-of-life (QoL) state–duration combinations blocked into 20 survey versions, with ten choice sets in each version, was designed and administered online to a sample representative of the Australian population. Two additional choice sets comprising internal consistency and dominance checks were included in each survey version. A range of model specifications investigating preferences with respect to duration and interactions between AD-5D dimension levels were estimated. Utility weights were developed, with estimated coefficients transformed to the 0 (being dead) to 1 (full health) scale, suitable for the calculation of quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) weights for use in economic evaluation. Results In total, 1999 respondents completed the choice experiment. Overall, respondents were slightly better educated and had higher annual incomes than the Australian general population. The estimation results from different specifications and models were broadly consistent with the monotonic nature of the AD-5D: utility increased with increased life expectancy and decreased as the severity level for each dimension worsened. A utility value set was generated for the calculation of utilities for all QoL states defined by the AD-5D descriptive system. Conclusion The DCE-based utility value set is now available to use to generate QALYs for the economic evaluation of treatments and interventions targeting people with dementia and/or their family caregivers.

Suggested Citation

  • Tracy A. Comans & Kim-Huong Nguyen & Julie Ratcliffe & Donna Rowen & Brendan Mulhern, 2020. "Valuing the AD-5D Dementia Utility Instrument: An Estimation of a General Population Tariff," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(8), pages 871-881, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00913-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00913-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00913-7
    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/s40273-020-00913-7?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. Emily Lancsar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Arne Risa Hole, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 697-716, July.
    2. G Torrance & Y Zhang & D Feeny & W Furlong & R Barr, 1992. "Multi-attribute Utility Functions for a Comprehensive Health Status Classification System: Health Utilities Index Mark 2," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1992-18, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 3rd August 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-08-03 11:00:00

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hutchinson, Claire & Worley, Anthea & Khadka, Jyoti & Milte, Rachel & Cleland, Jenny & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2022. "Do we agree or disagree? A systematic review of the application of preference-based instruments in self and proxy reporting of quality of life in older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    2. Ruvini M. Hettiarachchi & Peter Arrow & Sameera Senanayake & Hannah Carter & David Brain & Richard Norman & Utsana Tonmukayawul & Lisa Jamieson & Sanjeewa Kularatna, 2023. "Developing an Australian utility value set for the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale-4D (ECOHIS-4D) using a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(8), pages 1285-1296, November.

    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. Filiptseva, Anna & Filler, Günther & Odening, Martin, 2022. "Compensation Options for Quarantine Costs in Plant Production," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329595, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Gordon Hazen, 2004. "Multiattribute Structure for QALYs," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 205-216, December.
    3. Non, Arjan & Rohde, Ingrid & de Grip, Andries & Dohmen, Thomas, 2022. "Mission of the company, prosocial attitudes and job preferences: A discrete choice experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    4. Anirban Basu & William Dale & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2009. "A linear index for predicting joint health‐states utilities from single health‐states utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 403-419, April.
    5. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    6. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    7. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Lee, Jonq-Ying & Rampersaud, Gail S. & Brown, Mark G., 2008. "An Index to Measure Health Status," Research papers 36819, Florida Department of Citrus.
    9. Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato, 2019. "Analysis of the Factors that Influence Olive Oil Demand in the Veneto Region (Italy)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Christopher McCabe & Katherine Stevens & Jennifer Roberts & John Brazier, 2005. "Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 231-244, March.
    11. Dunsch, Felipe Alexander & Velenyi, Edit, 2019. "Job Preferences of Frontline Health Workers in Ghana - A Discrete Choice Experiment," SocArXiv bqx5k, Center for Open Science.
    12. Wehner, Caroline & de Grip, Andries & Pfeifer, Harald, 2022. "Do recruiters select workers with different personality traits for different tasks? A discrete choice experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    13. Feng Xie & A. Pickard & Paul Krabbe & Dennis Revicki & Rosalie Viney & Nancy Devlin & David Feeny, 2015. "A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(8), pages 867-877, August.
    14. Tzeyu L. Michaud & Robert L. Kane & J. Riley McCarten & Joseph E. Gaugler & John A. Nyman & Karen M. Kuntz, 2018. "Using Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarker Testing to Target Treatment to Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 309-323, September.
    15. Pamela Gongora-Salazar & Rafael Perera & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Apostolos Tsiachristas, 2024. "Unravelling Elements of Value of Healthcare and Assessing their Importance Using Evidence from Two Discrete-Choice Experiments in England," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(10), pages 1145-1159, October.
    16. Kevin Haninger & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Diminishing Willingness to Pay per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year: Valuing Acute Foodborne Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1363-1380, September.
    17. Poulissen, Davey & de Grip, Andries & Fouarge, Didier & Künn-Nelen, Annemarie, 2021. "Employers' Willingness to Invest in the Training of Temporary Workers: A Discrete Choice Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 14395, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Epstein, D.S. & Barton, C. & Mazza, D. & Woode, M.E. & Mortimer, D., 2020. "Patient chosen gap payments in primary care: Predictions of patient acceptability, uptake and willingness to pay from a discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    19. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    20. Silvia Castro & Clarissa Mang, 2023. "Breaking the Silence: Group Discussions, and the Adoption of Welfare-Improving Technologies," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 474, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.

    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:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00913-7. 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.