Article

A Shortcut to Mean-Based Time Tradeoff Tariffs for the EQ-5D?

Health Services Research Centre, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway.
Medical Decision Making (Impact Factor: 2.27). 01/2012; 32(4):569-77. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11431607
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT EQ-5D valuation studies are usually performed using the time tradeoff (TTO) method, which is costly and time consuming. We focused on 2 properties that particularly characterize TTO: the initial choice task categorizing health states as better than death (BTD), worse than death (WTD), or equal to death (ETD), and unwillingness to trade (UTT) lifetime to improve health. The aim of this study was to estimate the value of the information to be gained from continuing the conventional TTO tasks beyond the initial question and the extent to which mean-based EQ-5D tariff values could be predicted through a simplified method of categorizing health states into BTD, WTD, ETD, and UTT.
We used data from the UK EQ-5D valuation study (n = 2997). We designed an abbreviated system with only 4 values (collapsed TTO [cTTO]) based on the 4 response categories and assigned values as follows: WTD = -.5, ETD = 0, BTD = .5, and UTT = 1. Based on the mean cTTO scores for the valued health states, we created a regression-based cTTO tariff, which was compared with the conventional (full) TTO tariff (fTTO) by regressing 1) the fTTO means on cTTO means and 2) the fTTO tariff on the cTTO tariff.
WTD values were unrelated to health state severity. Correlation between the means of fTTO and means of cTTO was >.999, and tariff values from fTTO correlated with tariff values from cTTO at r > .999.
Once respondents have classified health states as UTT, BTD, ETD, or WTD, the TTO procedure adds little further information to the tariff values. The WTD task fails to discriminate between good and bad health states. TTO valuation could likely be simplified using cTTO.

0 Followers
 · 
88 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Health state values are by convention anchored to 'perfect health' and 'death.' Attitudes toward death may consequently influence the valuations. We used attitudes toward euthanasia (ATE) as a sub-construct for attitudes toward death. We compared the influence on values elicited with time trade-off (TTO), lead-time TTO (LT-TTO) and visual analogue scale (VAS).Since the 'death' anchor is most explicit in TTO, we hypothesized that TTO values would be most influenced by ATE. METHODS: Respondents valued eight EQ-5D health states with VAS, then TTO (n = 328) or LT-TTO (n = 484). We measured ATE on a scale from -2 (fully disagree) to 2 (fully agree) and used multiple linear regressions to predict VAS, TTO, and LT-TTO values by ATE, sex, age, and education. RESULTS: A one-point increase on the ATE scale predicted a mean TTO value change of -.113 and LT-TTO change of -.072. Demographic variables, but not ATE, predicted VAS values. CONCLUSIONS: TTO appears to measure ATE in addition to preferences for health states. Different ways of incorporating death in the valuation may impact substantially on the resulting values. 'Death' is a metaphysically unknown concept, and implications of attitudes toward death should be investigated further to evaluate the appropriateness of using 'death' as an anchor.
    Quality of Life Research 06/2012; 22(4). DOI:10.1007/s11136-012-0192-9 · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The expected utility framework underlies much research in medical decision making. Because the framework requires decisions to be decomposed into probabilities of states and the values of those states, researchers have investigated the two components separately from each other and from patients' actual decisions. The authors propose that it would be productive to focus more research on the relationships among risk perceptions, outcome valuations, and choices in the same decision makers. They outline exploratory analyses based on two existing national surveys, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health.
    Medical Decision Making 06/2012; 32(4):527-31. DOI:10.1177/0272989X12451339 · 2.27 Impact Factor