Chapter 11 – Choice Models

In this chapter we deal with measurement methods that aggregate multiple aspects of health into one measure expressing their combined overall quality. The underlying measurement models are grounded in a preference-based methodology. These methods are not used to measure the frequency or intensity of complaints on certain health domains, as is the case with the conventional multiitem, multidomain instruments developed under classical test theory. Instead, preference-based methods are used to measure the (experienced) overall impact of a health condition. The measures of these preference-based instruments express the quality of a health condition and are referred to as values. Better suited to convey meaning and interpretation, choice models allow investigators to compare the severity of various diseases.

[1]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Multinational Evidence of the Applicability and Robustness of Discrete Choice Modeling for Deriving EQ-5D-5L Health-State Values , 2014, Medical care.

[2]  Howard Wainer,et al.  The Rasch Model as Additive Conjoint Measurement , 1979 .

[3]  Hubert E. Brogden,et al.  The rasch model, the law of comparative judgment and additive conjoint measurement , 1977 .

[4]  N. Devlin,et al.  Time to tweak the TTO: results from a comparison of alternative specifications of the TTO , 2013, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[5]  Paul K. J. Han,et al.  Varieties of Uncertainty in Health Care , 2011 .

[6]  Paul F. M. Krabbe,et al.  Thurstone Scaling as a Measurement Method to Quantify Subjective Health Outcomes , 2008, Medical care.

[7]  Bernard Roy,et al.  Main sources of inaccurate determination, uncertainty and imprecision in decision models , 1989 .

[8]  M. T. King,et al.  Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[9]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health care , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  J. Louviere,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis , 2010 .

[11]  M. Versteegh,et al.  Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods , 2013, The European Journal of Health Economics.

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

[13]  F. Haaijer-Ruskamp,et al.  Understanding drug preferences, different perspectives. , 2015, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[14]  Ulf Böckenholt,et al.  Modeling subjective health outcomes: top 10 reasons to use Thurstone's method. , 2008, Medical care.

[15]  P. Krabbe,et al.  Probabilistic choice models in health-state valuation research: background, theories, assumptions and applications , 2013, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[16]  E. Zermelo.  Die Berechnung der Turnier-Ergebnisse als ein Maximumproblem der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung , 1929 .

[17]  Z Hakim,et al.  Modelling the EuroQol data: a comparison of discrete choice conjoint and conditional preference modelling. , 1999, Health economics.

[18]  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.

[19]  U. Konerding.  What does Cronbach’s alpha tell us about the EQ-5D? A methodological commentary to “Psychometric properties of the EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) in caregivers of autistic children” , 2013, Quality of Life Research.

[20]  R. Hays,et al.  US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[21]  A Maas,et al.  Assessing Utilities by Means of Conjoint Measurement , 1992, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[22]  Paul F. M. Krabbe,et al.  A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model , 2013, PloS one.

[23]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Judged seriousness of environmental losses: reliability and cause of loss , 2002 .

[24]  L. Thurstone,et al.  The effect of a motion picture film on children's attitudes toward Germans. , 1932 .

[25]  R. A. Bradley,et al.  Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons , 1952 .

[26]  C. Poulos,et al.  A discrete-choice experiment to determine patient preferences for injectable multiple sclerosis treatments in Germany , 2016, Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders.

[27]  T. Ruers,et al.  Computer-based decision making in medicine: A model for surgery of colorectal liver metastases. , 2007, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[28]  R. Luce,et al.  Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement , 1964 .

[29]  J. Ratcliffe,et al.  Novel application of a discrete choice experiment to identify preferences for a national healthcare-associated infection surveillance programme: a cross-sectional study , 2016, BMJ Open.

[30]  M. O. Olde Rikkert,et al.  A Simple and Practical Index to Measure Dementia-Related Quality of Life. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[31]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Discrete choice modeling for the quantification of health states: the case of the EQ-5D. , 2010, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[32]  L. Thurstone.  The method of paired comparisons for social values , 1927 .

[33]  Richard Norman,et al.  Valuing SF-6D Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment , 2014, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[34]  T. Bezembinder,et al.  Proportional Heuristics in Time Tradeoff and Conjoint Measurement , 1996, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.