A Methodological Study to Compare Alternative Modes of Administration with Value EQ-5D Using Preference-Elicitation Techniques

Abstract

ObjectivesTime trade-off (TTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference-elicitation techniques can be administered using face-to-face interviews (F2F), unassisted online (UO) surveys, or remote-assisted (RA) interviews. The objective of this study was to explore how the mode of administration affects the quality and reliability of preference-elicitation data. MethodsEQ-5D-5L health states were valued using composite TTO (cTTO) and DCE approaches by the UK general population. Participants were allocated to 1 of 2 study groups. Group A completed both F2F and UO surveys (n = 271), and group B completed both RA and UO surveys (n = 223). The feasibility of survey completion and the reliability and face-validity of data collected were compared across all modes of administration. ResultsFewer participants reported receiving sufficient guidance on the cTTO tasks during the UO survey compared with the 2 assisted modes. Participants across all modes typically reported receiving sufficient guidance on the DCE tasks.cTTO data were less reliable from the UO survey compared with both assisted modes, but there were no differences in DCE data reliability. cTTO data from all modes demonstrated face-validity; however, the UO survey produced higher utilities for moderate and severe health states than both assisted modes. Both F2F and RA modes provided comparably reliable data. ConclusionsThe reliability of DCE data is not affected by the mode of administration. Interviewer-assisted modes of administration (F2F or RA) yield more reliable cTTO data than unassisted surveys. Both F2F and RA surveys produced similar-quality data.