Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire
Corresponding Author
Julie Ratcliffe
Flinders Centre for Clinical Change and Health Care Research, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Health Economics, Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Playford Building, Level 4 Room 27, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia===Search for more papers by this authorJohn Brazier
Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Search for more papers by this authorAki Tsuchiya
Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Department of Economics, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Julie Ratcliffe
Flinders Centre for Clinical Change and Health Care Research, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Health Economics, Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Playford Building, Level 4 Room 27, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia===Search for more papers by this authorJohn Brazier
Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Search for more papers by this authorAki Tsuchiya
Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Department of Economics, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
There is an increasing interest in using data derived from ordinal methods, particularly data derived from discrete choice experiments (DCEs), to estimate the cardinal values for health states to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Ordinal measurement strategies such as DCE may have considerable practical advantages over more conventional cardinal measurement techniques, e.g. time trade-off (TTO), because they may not require such a high degree of abstract reasoning. However, there are a number of challenges to deriving the cardinal values for health states using ordinal data, including anchoring the values on the full health–dead scale used to calculate QALYs. This paper reports on a study that deals with these problems in the context of using two ordinal techniques, DCE and ranking, to derive the cardinal values for health states derived from a condition-specific sexual health measure. The results were compared with values generated using a commonly used cardinal valuation technique, the TTO. This study raises some important issues about the use of ordinal data to produce cardinal health state valuations. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
REFERENCES
- Bleichrodt H. 2002. A new explanation for the difference between time trade off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Economics 11(5): 447–456.
- Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. 1997. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Medical Decision Making 17: 208–216.
- Brazier J, Ratcliffe J. 2004. Survey comparing original response choices to items of the SQOL to the levels of the SQol state classification—preliminary findings. Report for Pfizer Limited.
- Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon J, Tsuchiya A. 2007. The Measurement and Valuation of Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
- Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. 2002a. The estimation of a preference based single index measure for health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics 21: 271–292.
- Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J, Stolk E. 2002b. Issues in estimating a preference based index for condition specific measures. Presentation at the International Health Economics Association Meeting, San Francisco, CA, USA.
- Brazier J, Roberts J, Platts M, Zoellner YF. 2004. Estimating a preference-based index for a menopause specific health quality of life questionnaire. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 3: 13–22.
10.1186/1477-7525-3-13 Google Scholar
- Brazier JE, Czoski-Murray C, Roberts J, Brown M, Symonds T, Kelleher C. 2008. Estimation of a preference based index from a condition specific measure: the King's Health Questionnaire. Medical Decision Making 28(10): 113–226.
- Brazier JE, Deverill M, Harper R, Booth A. 1999. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology and Assessment 3(9): 1–164.
- Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A. 2006. Using rank and discrete choice data to estimate health state utility values: the case of the AQL-5D. 69th Health Economists Study Group Meeting, University of York.
- Diggle PJ, Heagerty P, Liang KY, Zeger SL. 2002. Analysis of Longitudinal Data ( 2nd edn). Oxford University Press: Oxford.
10.1093/oso/9780198524847.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Dolan P. 1996. Modelling valuations for health states: the effect of duration. Health Policy 38: 189–203.
- Dolan P, Gudex C. 1995. Time preference, duration and health state valuations. Health Economics 4: 289–299.
- Dowie J. 2002. Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions. Health Economics 11: 1–8.
- Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J. 2007. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. Journal of Health Economics 26(1): 171–189.
- Guyatt G. 2002. Commentary on Jack Dowie, ‘Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions’. Health Economics 11(1): 1–8.
- Hakim Z, Pathak DS. 1999. Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling. Health Economics 8(2): 103–116.
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199903)8:2<103::AID-HEC393>3.0.CO;2-E CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- Hannemann W. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 69: 332–341.
- Hausman JA, Ruud PA. 1987. Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data. Journal of Econometrics 34: 83–104.
- Hershey JC, Kunrather HG, Schoemaker PJH. 1981. Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Science 28: 936–954.
- Hole AR. 2008. Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. Journal of Health Economics 27: 1078–1094.
- Huber J, Zwerina K. 1996. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research 33: 307–317.
- Kind P. 1996. Deriving cardinal scales from ordinal preference data: the analysis of time trade off data using pairwise judgement models. Paper presented to the Health Economists Study Group, Brunel University, July.
- Ljung G, Box G. 1979. On a measure of lack of fit in time series models. Biometrika 66: 265–270.
- Luce RD. 1959. Individual choice behaviour: A theoretical analysis. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
- Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ. 2005. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 49: 464–480.
- McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, Tsuchiya A, Roberts J, O'Hagan A, Stevens K. 2006. Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. Journal of Health Economics 25(3): 418–431.
- McFadden D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics, P Zarembka (ed.). Academic Press: New York; 105–142.
- MVH Group. 1995. The Measurement and Valuation of Health: Final Report on the Modelling of Valuation Tariffs. Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
- Osman LM, McKenzie L, Cairns J, Friend JA, Godden DJ, Legge JS, Douglas JG. 2001. Patient weighting of importance of asthma symptoms. Thorax 56: 138–142.
- Ryan M. 1996. The Application of Conjoint Analysis in Health Care. Office of Health Economics publications: London.
- Ryan M, Netten A, Skatun D, Smith P. 2006. Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome—an application to social care for older people. Journal of Health Economics 25: 927–944.
- Salomon JA. 2003. Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Population Health Metrics 1(1): 12.
- Salomon JA, Murray CJ. 2004. A multi-method approach to measuring health state valuations. Health Economics 13(3): 281–290.
- Schoemaker PJH. 1982. The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature 20: 529–563.
- Severin VC, Burgess L, Louviere T, Street DJ, 2004. Comparing statistical efficiency and respondent efficiency in choice experiments, Research Report, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
- Stolk EA, Busschbach JJV. 2003. Validity and feasibility of the use of condition specific outcome measures in economic evaluation. Quality of Life Research 12: 363–371.
- Street DJ, Burgess L. 2007. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments theory methods. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
10.1002/9780470148563 Google Scholar
- Sutherland HJ, Llewellyn Thomas H, Boyd D, Till JE. 1982. Attitudes towards quality of survival: the concept of maximum endurable time. Medical Decision Making 2: 299–309.
- Symonds T, Boolell M, Quirk F. 2005. Development of a questionnaire on sexual quality of life in women. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 31: 385–397.
- Torrance GW. 1976. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-economic Planning Science 10: 129–136.
- Torrance GW, Fenny D, Furlong W. 2001. Visual Analogue Scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Medical Decision Making 21: 329–334.
- Viney R, Savage E, Louviere J. 2005. Empirical investigation of experimental design properties of discrete choice experiments in health care. Health Economics 14: 349–362.
