Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data

BackgroundIn survey studies on health-state valuations, ordinal ranking exercises often are used as precursors to other elicitation methods such as the time trade-off (TTO) or standard gamble, but the ranking data have not been used in deriving cardinal valuations. This study reconsiders the role of ordinal ranks in valuing health and introduces a new approach to estimate interval-scaled valuations based on aggregate ranking data.MethodsAnalyses were undertaken on data from a previously published general population survey study in the United Kingdom that included rankings and TTO values for hypothetical states described using the EQ-5D classification system. The EQ-5D includes five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression) with three possible levels on each. Rank data were analysed using a random utility model, operationalized through conditional logit regression. In the statistical model, probabilities of observed rankings were related to the latent utilities of different health states, modeled as a linear function of EQ-5D domain scores, as in previously reported EQ-5D valuation functions. Predicted valuations based on the conditional logit model were compared to observed TTO values for the 42 states in the study and to predictions based on a model estimated directly from the TTO values. Models were evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between predictions and mean observations, and the root mean squared error of predictions at the individual level.ResultsAgreement between predicted valuations from the rank model and observed TTO values was very high, with an ICC of 0.97, only marginally lower than for predictions based on the model estimated directly from TTO values (ICC = 0.99). Individual-level errors were also comparable in the two models, with root mean squared errors of 0.503 and 0.496 for the rank-based and TTO-based predictions, respectively.ConclusionsModeling health-state valuations based on ordinal ranks can provide results that are similar to those obtained from more widely analyzed valuation techniques such as the TTO. The information content in aggregate ranking data is not currently exploited to full advantage. The possibility of estimating cardinal valuations from ordinal ranks could also simplify future data collection dramatically and facilitate wider empirical study of health-state valuations in diverse settings and population groups.

[1]  D. Cutler,et al.  Measuring the Health of the U.S. Population , 1997 .

[2]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[3]  Jennifer Roberts,et al.  Modelling Valuations for Eq-5d Health States: An Alternative Model Using Differences in Valuations , 2002, Medical care.

[4]  G W Torrance,et al.  Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[5]  P. Dolan,et al.  Health state valuations from the general public using the Visual Analogue Scale , 1996, Quality of Life Research.

[6]  Alan D. Lopez,et al.  The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. , 1996 .

[7]  L. Thurstone A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[8]  C. Murray,et al.  A multi-method approach to measuring health-state valuations. , 2004, Health economics.

[9]  G. Bonsel,et al.  The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. , 1997, Social science & medicine.

[10]  J. Brazier,et al.  Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  Christopher J L Murray,et al.  Health systems performance assessment: debates, methods and empiricism. , 2003 .

[12]  J. Brazier,et al.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[13]  R. Kane,et al.  Methodology for measuring health-state preferences--II: Scaling methods. , 1989, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  J. Richardson,et al.  Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? , 1994, Social science & medicine.

[15]  Wiebke Kuklys,et al.  Stated choice methods: analysis and application, Jordan J. Louviere, David A. Hensher and Joffre D. Swait, Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 0-521-78830-7 , 2002 .

[16]  Andrew J. Martin,et al.  A COMPARISON OF STANDARD GAMBLE, TIME TRADE-OFF, AND ADJUSTED TIME TRADE-OFF SCORES , 2000, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[17]  M. Weinstein,et al.  Estimating General-population Utilities Using One Binary-gamble Question per Respondent , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[18]  P. Dolan,et al.  The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. , 1996, Health economics.

[19]  M. Weinstein,et al.  Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. , 1996, JAMA.

[20]  M Ryan,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  J. Yellott The relationship between Luce's Choice Axiom, Thurstone's Theory of Comparative Judgment, and the double exponential distribution , 1977 .

[22]  S S Stevens,et al.  On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. , 1946, Science.

[23]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Assessing the potential demand for electric cars , 1981 .

[24]  E. Nord,et al.  Methods for quality adjustment of life years. , 1992, Social science & medicine.

[25]  E. Nord The Person-trade-off Approach to Valuing Health Care Programs , 1995, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[26]  George W. Torrance,et al.  Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques , 1976 .

[27]  R. Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. , 1960 .

[28]  Paul D. Allison,et al.  Logit Models for Sets of Ranked Items , 1994 .

[29]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[30]  M. Essink‐bot,et al.  Estimating parametric relationships between health description and health valuation with an application to the EuroQol EQ-5D. , 1999, Journal of health economics.

[31]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis , 1979 .

[32]  P. Zarembka Frontiers in econometrics , 1973 .

[33]  M. Johannesson,et al.  Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy--results of a Swedish pilot study. , 1991, Journal of health economics.

[34]  R. Klein,et al.  The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes study , 1993, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[35]  P. Dolan,et al.  Effect of Age on Health State Valuations , 2000, Journal of health services research & policy.

[36]  Dale J. Poirier,et al.  Rank‐ordered logit models: An empirical analysis of Ontario voter preferences , 1994 .

[37]  Paul Kind,et al.  Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey , 1998, BMJ.

[38]  Randall G. Chapaaan,et al.  Exploiting Rank Ordered Choice Set Data within the Stochastic Utility Model , 1982 .

[39]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Preferences for Health Outcomes , 1984, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[40]  G. Torrance Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. , 1986, Journal of health economics.

[41]  D. Feeny,et al.  Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. , 1996, Medical care.

[42]  R. Rabin,et al.  EQ-SD: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group , 2001, Annals of medicine.

[43]  Joseph S. Verducci,et al.  Probability models on rankings. , 1991 .

[44]  P. Dolan,et al.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. , 1997, Medical care.