title: Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best-worst scaling?
abstract: Choice-based methods have been used widely in assessing healthcare programs. This study compared the binary discrete choice experiment (DCE) and the multiprofile case of best-worst scaling (BWS) in eliciting preferences for the EQ-5D-5L. Forty-eight EQ-5D-5L health states were selected using a Bayesian efficient design and grouped into 24 pairs for the DCE tasks and 8 sets for the BWS tasks (each set has three health states). A total of 100 participants completed 12 pairs and 8 sets in a random order. A probit regression model and ranked order logistic regression model were used to estimate the latent utilities from the DCE and BWS, respectively. Both tasks were well understood by the majority of participants. The DCE tasks were relatively easier and took a shorter time to complete. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of the DCE was higher than that of the BWS. The variances associated with the latent utilities estimated from the DCE were larger than those from the BWS. The DCE is more feasible and reliable than the BWS in valuing the EQ-5D-5L. Future studies could focus on comparing the consistency and accuracy of these techniques in predicting the health utilities of the EQ-5D-5L.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada, fengxie@mcmaster.ca.
authors.forename: Feng
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Xie
authors.forename: Eleanor
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Pullenayegum
authors.forename: Kathryn
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Gaebel
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Oppe
authors.forename: Paul F M
authors.initials: PF
authors.lastname: Krabbe
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001499:Bayes Theorem; D002755:Choice Behavior; D005260:Female; D006304:Health Status; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D011788:Quality of Life / Q000523:psychology*; D035503:Sociobiology; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Health Econ. 2011 Nov;20(11):1379-91
references.pmid: 21053203
references.citation: Health Econ. 2013 Apr;22(4):376-92
references.pmid: 22396243
references.citation: Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Aug;9(3):275-84
references.pmid: 18038166
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
references.pmid: 21479777
references.citation: Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):708-15
references.pmid: 22867780
references.citation: Health Econ. 2011 Mar;20(3):348-61
references.pmid: 21308856
references.citation: Med Care. 2003 Feb;41(2):218-31
references.pmid: 12555050
references.citation: Eur J Health Econ. 2005 Jun;6(2):107-11
references.pmid: 19787847
references.citation: Ann Fam Med. 2008 Mar-Apr;6(2):107-15
references.pmid: 18332402
references.citation: J Health Econ. 2007 Jan;26(1):171-89
references.pmid: 16707175
references.citation: Health Econ. 2006 Apr;15(4):393-402
references.pmid: 16389652
references.citation: Health Econ. 2009 Aug;18(8):951-76
references.pmid: 19034951