Cargando…
Analytical Considerations When Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Values Using Composite Time Trade-Off Data: The Case of EQ-5D-Y-3L
Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are becoming increasingly used to elicit preferences for children’s health states. However, DCE data need to be anchored to produce value sets, and composite time trade-off (cTTO) data are typically used in the context of EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation. The objective of this...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9758092/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36396877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01214-x |
_version_ | 1784851966874091520 |
---|---|
author | Mott, David J. Devlin, Nancy J. Kreimeier, Simone Norman, Richard Shah, Koonal K. Rivero-Arias, Oliver |
author_facet | Mott, David J. Devlin, Nancy J. Kreimeier, Simone Norman, Richard Shah, Koonal K. Rivero-Arias, Oliver |
author_sort | Mott, David J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are becoming increasingly used to elicit preferences for children’s health states. However, DCE data need to be anchored to produce value sets, and composite time trade-off (cTTO) data are typically used in the context of EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation. The objective of this paper is to compare different anchoring methods, summarise the characteristics of the value sets they produce, and outline key considerations for analysts. Three anchoring methods were compared using data from published studies: (1) rescaling using the mean value for the worst health state; (2) linear mapping; and (3) hybrid modelling. The worst state rescaling value set had the largest range. The worst state rescaling and linear mapping value sets preserved the relative importance of the dimensions from the DCE, whereas the hybrid model value set did not. Overall, the predicted values from the hybrid model value set were more closely aligned with the cTTO values. These findings are relatively generalisable. Deciding upon which anchoring approach to use is challenging, as there are numerous considerations. Where cTTO data are collected for more than one health state, anchoring on the worst health state will arguably be suboptimal. However, the final choice of approach may require value judgements to be made. Researchers should seek input from relevant stakeholders when commencing valuation studies to help guide decisions and should clearly set out their rationale for their preferred anchoring approach in study outputs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-022-01214-x. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9758092 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97580922022-12-18 Analytical Considerations When Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Values Using Composite Time Trade-Off Data: The Case of EQ-5D-Y-3L Mott, David J. Devlin, Nancy J. Kreimeier, Simone Norman, Richard Shah, Koonal K. Rivero-Arias, Oliver Pharmacoeconomics Practical Application Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are becoming increasingly used to elicit preferences for children’s health states. However, DCE data need to be anchored to produce value sets, and composite time trade-off (cTTO) data are typically used in the context of EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation. The objective of this paper is to compare different anchoring methods, summarise the characteristics of the value sets they produce, and outline key considerations for analysts. Three anchoring methods were compared using data from published studies: (1) rescaling using the mean value for the worst health state; (2) linear mapping; and (3) hybrid modelling. The worst state rescaling value set had the largest range. The worst state rescaling and linear mapping value sets preserved the relative importance of the dimensions from the DCE, whereas the hybrid model value set did not. Overall, the predicted values from the hybrid model value set were more closely aligned with the cTTO values. These findings are relatively generalisable. Deciding upon which anchoring approach to use is challenging, as there are numerous considerations. Where cTTO data are collected for more than one health state, anchoring on the worst health state will arguably be suboptimal. However, the final choice of approach may require value judgements to be made. Researchers should seek input from relevant stakeholders when commencing valuation studies to help guide decisions and should clearly set out their rationale for their preferred anchoring approach in study outputs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-022-01214-x. Springer International Publishing 2022-11-18 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9758092/ /pubmed/36396877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01214-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Practical Application Mott, David J. Devlin, Nancy J. Kreimeier, Simone Norman, Richard Shah, Koonal K. Rivero-Arias, Oliver Analytical Considerations When Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Values Using Composite Time Trade-Off Data: The Case of EQ-5D-Y-3L |
title | Analytical Considerations When Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Values Using Composite Time Trade-Off Data: The Case of EQ-5D-Y-3L |
title_full | Analytical Considerations When Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Values Using Composite Time Trade-Off Data: The Case of EQ-5D-Y-3L |
title_fullStr | Analytical Considerations When Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Values Using Composite Time Trade-Off Data: The Case of EQ-5D-Y-3L |
title_full_unstemmed | Analytical Considerations When Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Values Using Composite Time Trade-Off Data: The Case of EQ-5D-Y-3L |
title_short | Analytical Considerations When Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Values Using Composite Time Trade-Off Data: The Case of EQ-5D-Y-3L |
title_sort | analytical considerations when anchoring discrete choice experiment values using composite time trade-off data: the case of eq-5d-y-3l |
topic | Practical Application |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9758092/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36396877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-022-01214-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mottdavidj analyticalconsiderationswhenanchoringdiscretechoiceexperimentvaluesusingcompositetimetradeoffdatathecaseofeq5dy3l AT devlinnancyj analyticalconsiderationswhenanchoringdiscretechoiceexperimentvaluesusingcompositetimetradeoffdatathecaseofeq5dy3l AT kreimeiersimone analyticalconsiderationswhenanchoringdiscretechoiceexperimentvaluesusingcompositetimetradeoffdatathecaseofeq5dy3l AT normanrichard analyticalconsiderationswhenanchoringdiscretechoiceexperimentvaluesusingcompositetimetradeoffdatathecaseofeq5dy3l AT shahkoonalk analyticalconsiderationswhenanchoringdiscretechoiceexperimentvaluesusingcompositetimetradeoffdatathecaseofeq5dy3l AT riveroariasoliver analyticalconsiderationswhenanchoringdiscretechoiceexperimentvaluesusingcompositetimetradeoffdatathecaseofeq5dy3l |