Abstract

PurposeThe de facto standard method for valuing EQ-5D health states is the time trade-off (TTO), an iterative choice procedure. The TTO requires a starting point (SP), an initial offer of time in full health which is compared to a fixed offer of time in impaired health. From the SP, the time in full health is manipulated until preferential indifference. The SP is arbitrary, but may influence respondents, an effect known as anchoring bias. The aim of the study was to explore the potential anchoring effect and its magnitude in TTO experiments.MethodsA total of 1249 respondents valued 8 EQ-5D health states in a Web study. We used the lead time TTO (LT-TTO) which allows eliciting negative and positive values with a uniform method. Respondents were randomized to 11 different SPs. Anchoring bias was assessed using OLS regression with SP as the independent variable. In a secondary experiment, we compared two different SPs in the UK EQ-5D valuation study TTO protocol.ResultsA 1-year increase in the SP, corresponding to an increase in TTO value of 0.1, resulted in 0.02 higher recorded LT-TTO value. SP had little impact on the relative distance and ordering of the eight health states. Results were similar to the secondary experiment.ConclusionThe anchoring effect may bias TTO values. In this Web-based valuation study, the observed anchoring effect was substantial. Further studies are needed to determine whether the effect is present in face-to-face experiments.

Highlights

  • Health gain estimates in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) play an important role in healthcare resources allocation

  • The time trade-off (TTO) requires a starting point (SP), an initial offer of time in full health which is compared to a fixed offer of time in impaired health

  • Setting the value of full health to 1 allows us to estimate the value of the impaired health state on a scale appropriate for QALY calculation

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Health gain estimates in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) play an important role in healthcare resources allocation. Setting the value of full health to 1 allows us to estimate the value of the impaired health state on a scale appropriate for QALY calculation. The point of indifference is identified through a series of discrete choices in which a fixed number of years in impaired health is compared to a variable number of years in full health until the respondent states preferential indifference. Several different search procedures— systems for varying the length of the life in full health— exist to reach the offer which represents the preferential equilibrium. Common to all such series of iterative choices

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (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