Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best–worst scaling?

Xie, Feng; Pullenayegum, Eleanor; Gaebel, Katherine; Oppe, Mark; Krabbe, Paul F M

doi:10.1007/s10198-013-0474-3

Cited by 35 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The qualitative work and pre-testing of different versions of the questionnaire during the development stage further helped to reduce the risk of internal inconsistencies. [118][119][120][121] Responses to the following questions presented after the respondents had completed the choice task (DCE) were analysed using appropriate descriptive statistics for the full sample and two subgroups: parents' preferences for organisation of vaccination services (universal, targeted, mandatory or current practice); influence of financial incentives on decisions to immunise, including for those individuals who stated that they would require an incentive to vaccinate, the minimum value of that incentive (their WTA), and, for those who would not require an incentive, the maximum value they thought an incentive should be (their WTP); preferences for cash or voucher rewards and the reasons underpinning the minimum acceptable incentive value (if applicable); information received on vaccinations, including the way that information was received, the extent their information needs were fulfilled and alternative sources of information consulted; and the rank order assigned to the eight attributes presented in the DCE choice task.…”

Section: Stage 4: Data Analysis and Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness and acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing uptake of vaccinations in preschool children: systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment

Adams

Bateman

Becker

et al. 2015

Health Technol Assess

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUptake of preschool vaccinations is less than optimal. Financial incentives and quasi-mandatory policies (restricting access to child care or educational settings to fully vaccinated children) have been used to increase uptake internationally, but not in the UK.ObjectiveTo provide evidence on the effectiveness, acceptability and economic costs and consequences of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing the uptake of preschool vaccinations.DesignSystematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment (DCE) with questionnaire.SettingCommunity, health and education settings in England.ParticipantsQualitative study – parents and carers of preschool children, health and educational professionals. DCE – parents and carers of preschool children identified as ‘at high risk’ and ‘not at high risk’ of incompletely vaccinating their children.Data sourcesQualitative study – focus groups and individual interviews. DCE – online questionnaire.Review methodsThe review included studies exploring the effectiveness, acceptability or economic costs and consequences of interventions that offered contingent rewards or penalties with real material value for preschool vaccinations, or quasi-mandatory schemes that restricted access to ‘universal’ services, compared with usual care or no intervention. Electronic database, reference and citation searches were conducted.ResultsSystematic review – there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the interventions considered are effective. There was some evidence that the quasi-mandatory interventions were acceptable. There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on economic costs and consequences. Qualitative study – there was little appetite for parental financial incentives. Quasi-mandatory schemes were more acceptable. Optimising current services was consistently preferred to the interventions proposed. DCE and questionnaire – universal parental financial incentives were preferred to quasi-mandatory interventions, which were preferred to targeted incentives. Those reporting that they would need an incentive to vaccinate their children completely required around £110. Those who did not felt that the maximum acceptable incentive was around £70.LimitationsSystematic review – a number of relevant studies were excluded as they did not meet the study design inclusion criteria. Qualitative study – few partially and non-vaccinating parents were recruited. DCE and questionnaire – data were from a convenience sample.ConclusionsThere is little current evidence on the effectiveness or economic costs and consequences of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory interventions for preschool vaccinations. Universal incentives are likely to be more acceptable than targeted ones. Preferences concerning incentives versus quasi-mandatory interventions may depend on the context in which these are elicited.Future workFurther evidence is required on (i) the effectiveness and optimal configuration of parental financial incentive and quasi-mandatory interventions for preschool vaccinations – if effectiveness is confirmed, further evidence is required on how to communicate this to stakeholders and the impact on acceptability; and (ii) the acceptability of parental financial incentive and quasi-mandatory interventions for preschool vaccinations to members of the population who are not parents of preschool children or relevant health professionals. Further consideration should be given to (i) incorporating reasons for non-vaccination into new interventions for promoting vaccination uptake; and (ii) how existing services can be optimised.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003192.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

show abstract

Section: Stage 4: Data Analysis and Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness and acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing uptake of vaccinations in preschool children: systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment

Adams

Bateman

Becker

et al. 2015

Health Technol Assess

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies that directly elicit preferences from representative general population samples to derive value sets for the new EQ-5D-5L, using a harmonized protocol, have already been published for several countries [25,41,42,43,44,45], but they are not yet developed in many others, including…”

Section: Comparison With Prior Studies Evaluating the Eq-5d In Patienmentioning

confidence: 99%

EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) Validity in Assessing the Quality of Life in Adults With Asthma: Cross-Sectional Study (Preprint)

Hernández¹,

Garín²,

Dima³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of these assumptions may be violated in assessing health states. Furthermore, recent studies from the EuroQol group provide evidence that using paired comparisons with the five-level classification system imposes significant cognitive burden on respondents, which might indicate that a choice task with three or more health states would become too difficult [56]. Therefore, in the context of health-state valuations, it seems more convenient to restrict the applications to the standard paired comparison approach or ranking.…”

Section: General Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This task is very similar to a paired comparison with more than two profiles, although respondents provide more information since they also indicate which profile they consider worst. In the field of health-state valuation such a response task might be useful; however, if the classification system that is being valued consists of many attributes and levels, respondents might find this task too difficult to complete [56]. The final type is the attribute-level BWS.…”

Section: Arons and Krabbementioning

confidence: 99%

Probabilistic choice models in health-state valuation research: background, theories, assumptions and applications

Arons

Krabbe

2013

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interest is rising in measuring subjective health outcomes, such as treatment outcomes that are not directly quantifiable (functional disability, symptoms, complaints, side effects and healthrelated quality of life). Health economists in particular have applied probabilistic choice models in the area of health evaluation. They increasingly use discrete choice models based on random utility theory to derive values for healthcare goods or services. Recent attempts have been made to use discrete choice models as an alternative method to derive values for health states. In this article, various probabilistic choice models are described according to their underlying theory. A historical overview traces their development and applications in diverse fields. The discussion highlights some theoretical and technical aspects of the choice models and their similarity and dissimilarity. The objective of the article is to elucidate the position of each model and their applications for health-state valuation.

show abstract

Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best–worst scaling?

Cited by 35 publications

References 14 publications

Effectiveness and acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing uptake of vaccinations in preschool children: systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment

Effectiveness and acceptability of parental financial incentives and quasi-mandatory schemes for increasing uptake of vaccinations in preschool children: systematic review, qualitative study and discrete choice experiment

EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) Validity in Assessing the Quality of Life in Adults With Asthma: Cross-Sectional Study (Preprint)

Probabilistic choice models in health-state valuation research: background, theories, assumptions and applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About