Abstract
Time Trade‐Off (TTO) usually relies on “iteration,” which is susceptible to bias. Discrete Choice Experiment with duration (or DCETTO) is free of such bias, but respondents find this cognitively more challenging. This paper explores non‐iterative TTO with or without lead time: NI(LT)TTO. In NI(LT)TTO, respondents see a series of independent pairwise choices without iteration (similar to DCETTO), but one of the two scenarios always involves full health for a shorter duration (similar to TTO). We compare three different “types” of NI(LT)TTO relative to DCETTO. Each type is presented in two “modes”: (a) verbally tabulated (as in a DCE) and (b) with visual aids (as in a TTO). The study has 8 survey variants, each with 12 experimental choice tasks and a 13th task with a logically determined answer. Data on the 12 experimental choices from an online survey of 6,618 respondents are modelled, by variant, using conditional logistic regressions. The results indicate that NI(LT)TTO is feasible, but some relatively mild states appear to have implausibly low predicted values, and the range of predicted values is much narrower than in DCETTO. The presentation of NI(LT)TTO tasks needs further improvement.
Highlights
Type 0: The baseline type used in the study is a DCETTO that replicates the design used in an earlier study (“Type Ia” from Mulhern, Bansback, Hole, & Tsuchiya, 2017)
There are no large discrepancies in respondent numbers and rates across variants in completion rates, respondents allocated to Type 0 (DCETTO) take longer than the rest
This study is the first to experiment a full‐scale health state valuation using an innovative valuation method that is a cross between iterative (LT)Time Trade‐Off (TTO) and DCETTO
Summary
The survey consists of four types of experimental tasks (0, 1, 2, and 3), presented in two different modes of presentation (a and b), resulting in eight survey variants. Type 0: The baseline type used in the study is a DCETTO that replicates the design used in an earlier study (“Type Ia” from Mulhern, Bansback, Hole, & Tsuchiya, 2017) This consists of 120 scenario pairs generated using Ngene (Choice Metrics, 2012) and has six levels of duration (6 months, 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 years). Type 3: This is another NILTTTO (NILTTTO‐II), but instead of an experimental design to select pairs of health scenarios in a single step, a two‐stage design is used This is an innovative and promising approach to design DCETTO (Mulhern et al, 2017), and the present study tests if this is viable for NILTTO. The themes and the number of times each theme was mentioned are reviewed to see if differences existed per variant
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
