Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format

Norman, R; Viney, R; Aaronson, NK; Brazier, JE; Cella, D; Costa, DSJ; Fayers, PM; Kemmler, G; Peacock, S; Pickard, AS; Rowen, D; Street, DJ; Velikova, G; Young, TA; King, MT

Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format

Norman, R

Viney, R

Aaronson, NK Brazier, JE Cella, D Costa, DSJ Fayers, PM Kemmler, G Peacock, S Pickard, AS Rowen, D Street, DJ

Velikova, G Young, TA King, MT

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Quality of Life Research, 2016, 25 (3), pp. 637 - 649
Issue Date:: 2016-03-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	art%3A10.1007%2Fs11136-015-1115-3.pdf	Published Version	1.6 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Norman, R https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3112-3893	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Viney, R https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0039-9635	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Aaronson, NK	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Brazier, JE	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Cella, D	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Costa, DSJ	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Fayers, PM	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Kemmler, G	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Peacock, S	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Pickard, AS	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Rowen, D	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Street, DJ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4476-0656	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Velikova, G	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Young, TA	en_US
dc.contributor.author	King, MT	en_US
dc.date.available	2015-08-22	en_US
dc.date.issued	2016-03-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Quality of Life Research, 2016, 25 (3), pp. 637 - 649	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0962-9343	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/122578
dc.description.abstract	© 2015, Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Purpose: To assess the feasibility of using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to value health states within the QLU-C10D, a utility instrument derived from the QLQ-C30, and to assess clarity, difficulty, and respondent preference between two presentation formats. Methods: We ran a DCE valuation task in an online panel (N = 430). Respondents answered 16 choice pairs; in half of these, differences between dimensions were highlighted, and in the remainder, common dimensions were described in text and differing attributes were tabulated. To simplify the cognitive task, only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed per choice set. We assessed difficulty and clarity of the valuation task with Likert-type scales, and respondents were asked which format they preferred. We analysed the DCE data by format with a conditional logit model and used Chi-squared tests to compare other responses by format. Semi-structured telephone interviews (N = 8) explored respondents’ cognitive approaches to the valuation task. Results: Four hundred and forty-nine individuals were recruited, 430 completed at least one choice set, and 422/449 (94 %) completed all 16 choice sets. Interviews revealed that respondents found ten domains difficult but manageable, many adopting simplifying heuristics. Results for clarity and difficulty were identical between formats, but the “highlight” format was preferred by 68 % of respondents. Conditional logit parameter estimates were monotonic within domains, suggesting respondents were able to complete the DCE sensibly, yielding valid results. Conclusion: A DCE valuation task in which only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed in any choice set is feasible for deriving utility weights for the QLU-C10D.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Quality of Life Research	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Health Policy & Services	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Neoplasms	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Logistic Models	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Choice Behavior	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Psychometrics	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Health Status	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Life	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Telephone	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Female	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Male	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires	en_US
dc.title	Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	3	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	25	en_US
utslib.for	140208 Health Economics	en_US
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services	en_US
utslib.for	1701 Psychology	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	closed_access
pubs.issue	3	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	25	en_US

Abstract:

© 2015, Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Purpose: To assess the feasibility of using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to value health states within the QLU-C10D, a utility instrument derived from the QLQ-C30, and to assess clarity, difficulty, and respondent preference between two presentation formats. Methods: We ran a DCE valuation task in an online panel (N = 430). Respondents answered 16 choice pairs; in half of these, differences between dimensions were highlighted, and in the remainder, common dimensions were described in text and differing attributes were tabulated. To simplify the cognitive task, only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed per choice set. We assessed difficulty and clarity of the valuation task with Likert-type scales, and respondents were asked which format they preferred. We analysed the DCE data by format with a conditional logit model and used Chi-squared tests to compare other responses by format. Semi-structured telephone interviews (N = 8) explored respondents’ cognitive approaches to the valuation task. Results: Four hundred and forty-nine individuals were recruited, 430 completed at least one choice set, and 422/449 (94 %) completed all 16 choice sets. Interviews revealed that respondents found ten domains difficult but manageable, many adopting simplifying heuristics. Results for clarity and difficulty were identical between formats, but the “highlight” format was preferred by 68 % of respondents. Conditional logit parameter estimates were monotonic within domains, suggesting respondents were able to complete the DCE sensibly, yielding valid results. Conclusion: A DCE valuation task in which only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed in any choice set is feasible for deriving utility weights for the QLU-C10D.

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

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/122578