Valuing EQ-5D-Y-3L Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment: Do Adult and Adolescent Preferences Differ?

Background An important question in the valuation of children’s health is whether the preferences of younger individuals should be captured within value sets for measures that are aimed at them. This depends on whether younger individuals can complete valuation exercises and whether their preferences differ from those of adults. This study compared the preferences of adults and adolescents for EQ-5D-Y-3L health states using latent scale values elicited from a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Methods An online DCE survey, comprising 15 pairwise choices, was provided to samples of UK adults and adolescents (aged 11–17 y). Adults considered the health of a 10-year-old child, whereas adolescents considered their own health. Mixed logit models were estimated, and comparisons were made using relative attribute importance (RAI) scores and a pooled model. Results In total, 1000 adults and 1005 adolescents completed the survey. For both samples, level 3 in pain/discomfort was most important, and level 2 in self-care the least important, based on the relative magnitudes of coefficients. The RAI scores (normalized on self-care) indicated that adolescents gave less weight relative to adults to usual activities (1.18 v. 1.51; P < 0.05), pain/discomfort (1.77 v. 3.12; P < 0.01), and anxiety/depression (1.64 vs. 2.65; P < 0.01). The pooled model indicated evidence of differences between the two samples in both levels in pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Limitations The perspective of the DCE task differed between the 2 samples, and no data were collected to anchor the DCE data to generate value sets. Conclusions Adolescents could complete the DCE, and their preferences differed from those of adults taking a child perspective. It is important to consider whether their preferences should be incorporated into value sets.

[1]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best–worst discrete choice experiments in health , 2019, Health economics.

[2]  S. Paisley,et al.  Are preferences over health states informed? , 2017, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[3]  M. Najafzadeh,et al.  Whose preferences should be elicited for use in health-care decision-making? A case study using anticoagulant therapy , 2016, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[4]  Paul Kind,et al.  Can adult weights be used to value child health states? Testing the influence of perspective in valuing EQ-5D-Y , 2015, Quality of Life Research.

[5]  Mark Oppe,et al.  International Valuation Protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L , 2020, PharmacoEconomics.

[6]  N. Devlin,et al.  DO ADULT AND ADOLESCENT PREFERENCES DIFFER? , 2019 .

[7]  J. Bridges,et al.  Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review , 2018, PharmacoEconomics.

[8]  Mark Oppe,et al.  A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. , 2014, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[9]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Valuation of EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire, Youth Version (EQ-5D-Y) and EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire, Three-Level Version (EQ-5D-3L) Health States: The Impact of Wording and Perspective. , 2018, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[10]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis , 2015 .

[11]  D. McFadden,et al.  MIXED MNL MODELS FOR DISCRETE RESPONSE , 2000 .

[12]  Stephane Hess,et al.  Correlation and scale in mixed logit models , 2017 .

[13]  L. Longworth,et al.  An Empirical Study of Two Alternative Comparators for Use in Time Trade-Off Studies. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[14]  Afschin Gandjour,et al.  Theoretical Foundation of Patient v. Population Preferences in Calculating QALYs , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[15]  John Brazier,et al.  Developing Adolescent-Specific Health State Values for Economic Evaluation , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[16]  A. Stiggelbout,et al.  Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. , 2010, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[17]  N. Devlin,et al.  Methods for Analysing and Reporting EQ-5D Data , 2020 .

[18]  J. Brazier,et al.  Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it , 2017, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[19]  J. Ratcliffe,et al.  Scoring the Child Health Utility 9D instrument: estimation of a Chinese child and adolescent-specific tariff , 2018, Quality of Life Research.

[20]  P. Dolan,et al.  An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. , 2003, Health economics.

[21]  P. Kind,et al.  Transforming discrete choice experiment latent scale values for EQ-5D-3L using the visual analogue scale , 2020, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[22]  K. Shah,et al.  Experience-Based Values: A Framework for Classifying Different Types of Experience in Health Valuation Research , 2018, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[23]  A. Brennan,et al.  Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? , 2005, Applied health economics and health policy.

[24]  Michael Herdman,et al.  Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D , 2010, Quality of Life Research.

[25]  Katherine Payne,et al.  Accounting for Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare-Related Discrete Choice Experiments when Comparing Stated Preferences: A Systematic Review , 2018, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[26]  Deborah J Street,et al.  One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation , 2018, PharmacoEconomics.

[27]  Katherine Payne,et al.  Scale Heterogeneity in Healthcare Discrete Choice Experiments: A Primer , 2018, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[28]  A. Stiggelbout,et al.  Health state utilities: a framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real. , 2008, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[29]  J. González A Guide to Measuring and Interpreting Attribute Importance , 2019, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[30]  G. Bonsel,et al.  Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study , 2010, Quality of Life Research.

[31]  A. Tsuchiya,et al.  Re-Thinking 'The Different Perspectives That can be Used When Eliciting Preferences in Health'. , 2017, Health Economics.

[32]  N. Devlin,et al.  An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values , 2020, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[33]  Denzil G. Fiebig,et al.  The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[34]  W. Brouwer,et al.  Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines. , 2016, Social Science & Medicine (1967).

[35]  R. Norman,et al.  Feasibility, Validity and Differences in Adolescent and Adult EQ-5D-Y Health State Valuation in Australia and Spain: An Application of Best–Worst Scaling , 2020, PharmacoEconomics.

[36]  K. Marsh,et al.  Assessing Rationality in Discrete Choice Experiments in Health: An Investigation into the Use of Dominance Tests. , 2018, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[37]  Donna Rowen,et al.  Review of Valuation Methods of Preference-Based Measures of Health for Economic Evaluation in Child and Adolescent Populations: Where are We Now and Where are We Going? , 2020, PharmacoEconomics.