The episodic random utility model unifies time trade-off and discrete choice approaches in health state valuation

BackgroundTo present an episodic random utility model that unifies time trade-off and discrete choice approaches in health state valuation.MethodsFirst, we introduce two alternative random utility models (RUMs) for health preferences: the episodic RUM and the more common instant RUM. For the interpretation of time trade-off (TTO) responses, we show that the episodic model implies a coefficient estimator, and the instant model implies a mean slope estimator. Secondly, we demonstrate these estimators and the differences between the estimates for 42 health states using TTO responses from the seminal Measurement and Valuation in Health (MVH) study conducted in the United Kingdom. Mean slopes are estimates with and without Dolan's transformation of worse-than-death (WTD) responses. Finally, we demonstrate an exploded probit estimator, an extension of the coefficient estimator for discrete choice data that accommodates both TTO and rank responses.ResultsBy construction, mean slopes are less than or equal to coefficients, because slopes are fractions and, therefore, magnify downward errors in WTD responses. The Dolan transformation of WTD responses causes mean slopes to increase in similarity to coefficient estimates, yet they are not equivalent (i.e., absolute mean difference = 0.179). Unlike mean slopes, coefficient estimates demonstrate strong concordance with rank-based predictions (Lin's rho = 0.91). Combining TTO and rank responses under the exploded probit model improves the identification of health state values, decreasing the average width of confidence intervals from 0.057 to 0.041 compared to TTO only results.ConclusionThe episodic RUM expands upon the theoretical framework underlying health state valuation and contributes to health econometrics by motivating the selection of coefficient and exploded probit estimators for the analysis of TTO and rank responses. In future MVH surveys, sample size requirements may be reduced through the incorporation of multiple responses under a single estimator.

[1]  Frank A. Sloan,et al.  Valuing health care , 1996 .

[2]  Frank de Charro,et al.  The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective , 2003, Springer Netherlands.

[3]  Peep F M Stalmeier,et al.  The gap effect: discontinuities of preferences around dead. , 2005, Health economics.

[4]  Benjamin M Craig,et al.  Modeling Ranking, Time Trade-Off, and Visual Analog Scale Values for EQ-5D Health States: A Review and Comparison of Methods , 2009, Medical care.

[5]  The duration effect: a link between TTO and VAS values. , 2009, Health economics.

[6]  Joshua A Salomon,et al.  Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data , 2003, Population health metrics.

[7]  Stephen Joel Coons,et al.  US Valuation of the EQ-5D Health States: Development and Testing of the D1 Valuation Model , 2005, Medical care.

[8]  B. Efron The Efficiency of Cox's Likelihood Function for Censored Data , 1977 .

[9]  P. Stalmeier,et al.  On the Assessment of Preferences for Health and Duration: Maximal Endurable Time and Better Than Dead Preferences , 2007, Medical care.

[10]  C. Gudex,et al.  Time trade-off user manual: props and self-completion methods , 1994 .

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

[12]  Willard G. Manning,et al.  Valuing health care: Statistical issues in cost–effectiveness analyses , 1995 .

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

[14]  M. Drummond,et al.  Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Public Policy@@@Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes , 1988 .

[15]  Simon Thompson,et al.  Statistical issues in cost-effectiveness analyses. , 2002, Statistical methods in medical research.

[16]  Grazyna Adamiak,et al.  Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed , 2006 .

[17]  S. Ramachandran,et al.  Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies. , 2006, Health economics.

[18]  A. Tsuchiya,et al.  A comparison of EQ-5D time trade-off values obtained in Germany, The United Kingdom and Spain , 2003 .

[19]  Robert L Kane,et al.  Values and long-term care , 1982 .

[20]  P. Stalmeier,et al.  Testing the interval-level measurement property of multi-item visual analogue scales , 2006, Quality of Life Research.

[21]  K C Cain,et al.  Measuring Preferences for Health States Worse than Death , 1994, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[22]  Anthony O'Hagan,et al.  Using rank data to estimate health state utility models. , 2006, Journal of health economics.

[23]  J. Nunnally Psychometric Theory (2nd ed), New York: McGraw-Hill. , 1978 .