Binary choice health state valuation and mode of administration: Head-to-head comparison of online and CAPI

Mulhern, B; Longworth, L; Brazier, J; Rowen, D; Bansback, N; Devlin, N; Tsuchiya, A

Binary choice health state valuation and mode of administration: Head-to-head comparison of online and CAPI

Mulhern, B

Longworth, L Brazier, J Rowen, D Bansback, N Devlin, N Tsuchiya, A

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Value in Health, 2013, 16 (1), pp. 104 - 113
Issue Date:: 2013-01-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published VersionAdobe PDF (498.93 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Mulhern, B https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3656-8063	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Longworth, L	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Brazier, J	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Rowen, D	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Bansback, N	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Devlin, N	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Tsuchiya, A	en_US
dc.date.available	2012-09-04	en_US
dc.date.issued	2013-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Value in Health, 2013, 16 (1), pp. 104 - 113	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1098-3015	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/116207
dc.description.abstract	Background: Health state valuation exercises can be conducted online, but the quality of data generated is unclear. Objective: To investigate whether responses to binary choice health state valuation questions differ by administration mode: online versus face to face. Methods: Identical surveys including demographic, self-reported health status, and seven types of binary choice valuation questions were administered in online and computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) settings. Samples were recruited following procedures employed in typical online or CAPI studies. Analysis included descriptive comparisons of the distribution of responses across the binary options and probit regression to explain the propensity to choose one option across modes of administration, controlling for background characteristics. Results: Overall, 422 (221 online; 201 CAPI) respondents completed a survey. There were no overall age or sex differences. Online respondents were educated to a higher level than were the CAPI sample and general population, and employment status differed. CAPI respondents reported significantly better general health and health/life satisfaction. CAPI took significantly longer to complete. There was no effect of the mode of administration on responses to the valuation questions, and this was replicated when demographic differences were controlled. Conclusions: The findings suggest that both modes may be equally valid for health state valuation studies using binary choice methods (e.g., discrete choice experiments). There are some differences between the observable characteristics of the samples, and the groups may differ further in terms of unobservable characteristics. When designing health state valuation studies, the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches must be considered. © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Value in Health	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.jval.2012.09.001	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Health Policy & Services	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Data Collection	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Regression Analysis	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Personal Satisfaction	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Choice Behavior	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Health Status	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Internet	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Adolescent	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Adult	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Aged	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Middle Aged	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Satisfaction	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Female	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Male	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Interviews as Topic	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Young Adult	en_US
dc.title	Binary choice health state valuation and mode of administration: Head-to-head comparison of online and CAPI	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	16	en_US
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services	en_US
utslib.for	1402 Applied Economics	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHERE - Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	16	en_US

Abstract:

Background: Health state valuation exercises can be conducted online, but the quality of data generated is unclear. Objective: To investigate whether responses to binary choice health state valuation questions differ by administration mode: online versus face to face. Methods: Identical surveys including demographic, self-reported health status, and seven types of binary choice valuation questions were administered in online and computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) settings. Samples were recruited following procedures employed in typical online or CAPI studies. Analysis included descriptive comparisons of the distribution of responses across the binary options and probit regression to explain the propensity to choose one option across modes of administration, controlling for background characteristics. Results: Overall, 422 (221 online; 201 CAPI) respondents completed a survey. There were no overall age or sex differences. Online respondents were educated to a higher level than were the CAPI sample and general population, and employment status differed. CAPI respondents reported significantly better general health and health/life satisfaction. CAPI took significantly longer to complete. There was no effect of the mode of administration on responses to the valuation questions, and this was replicated when demographic differences were controlled. Conclusions: The findings suggest that both modes may be equally valid for health state valuation studies using binary choice methods (e.g., discrete choice experiments). There are some differences between the observable characteristics of the samples, and the groups may differ further in terms of unobservable characteristics. When designing health state valuation studies, the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches must be considered. © 2013 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/116207