Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D

feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format

R. Norman* (Corresponding Author), R. Viney, N. K. Aaronson, J. E. Brazier, D. Cella, D. S.J. Costa, P. M. Fayers, G. Kemmler, S. Peacock, A. S. Pickard, D. Rowen, D. J. Street, G. Velikova, T. A. Young, M. T. King

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the feasibility of using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to value health states within the QLU-C10D, a utility instrument derived from the QLQ-C30, and to assess clarity, difficulty, and respondent preference between two presentation formats. Methods: We ran a DCE valuation task in an online panel (N = 430). Respondents answered 16 choice pairs; in half of these, differences between dimensions were highlighted, and in the remainder, common dimensions were described in text and differing attributes were tabulated. To simplify the cognitive task, only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed per choice set. We assessed difficulty and clarity of the valuation task with Likert-type scales, and respondents were asked which format they preferred. We analysed the DCE data by format with a conditional logit model and used Chi-squared tests to compare other responses by format. Semi-structured telephone interviews (N = 8) explored respondents’ cognitive approaches to the valuation task. Results: Four hundred and forty-nine individuals were recruited, 430 completed at least one choice set, and 422/449 (94 %) completed all 16 choice sets. Interviews revealed that respondents found ten domains difficult but manageable, many adopting simplifying heuristics. Results for clarity and difficulty were identical between formats, but the “highlight” format was preferred by 68 % of respondents. Conditional logit parameter estimates were monotonic within domains, suggesting respondents were able to complete the DCE sensibly, yielding valid results. Conclusion: A DCE valuation task in which only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed in any choice set is feasible for deriving utility weights for the QLU-C10D.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)637-649
Number of pages13
JournalQuality of Life Research
Volume25
Issue number3
Early online date5 Sep 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2016

Fingerprint

Interviews
Surveys and Questionnaires
Logistic Models
Weights and Measures
Health
Heuristics

Keywords

  • Cancer
  • Discrete choice experiment
  • QLQ-C30
  • Quality of life
  • Utility

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Norman, R., Viney, R., Aaronson, N. K., Brazier, J. E., Cella, D., Costa, D. S. J., ... King, M. T. (2016). Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 637-649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3

Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D : feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. / Norman, R. (Corresponding Author); Viney, R.; Aaronson, N. K.; Brazier, J. E.; Cella, D.; Costa, D. S.J.; Fayers, P. M.; Kemmler, G.; Peacock, S.; Pickard, A. S.; Rowen, D.; Street, D. J.; Velikova, G.; Young, T. A.; King, M. T.

In: Quality of Life Research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 01.03.2016, p. 637-649.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Norman, R, Viney, R, Aaronson, NK, Brazier, JE, Cella, D, Costa, DSJ, Fayers, PM, Kemmler, G, Peacock, S, Pickard, AS, Rowen, D, Street, DJ, Velikova, G, Young, TA & King, MT 2016, 'Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format', Quality of Life Research, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 637-649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3
Norman, R. ; Viney, R. ; Aaronson, N. K. ; Brazier, J. E. ; Cella, D. ; Costa, D. S.J. ; Fayers, P. M. ; Kemmler, G. ; Peacock, S. ; Pickard, A. S. ; Rowen, D. ; Street, D. J. ; Velikova, G. ; Young, T. A. ; King, M. T. / Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D : feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. In: Quality of Life Research. 2016 ; Vol. 25, No. 3. pp. 637-649.
@article{edc60c6b31544fea81df17c38f7661ca,
title = "Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format",
abstract = "Purpose: To assess the feasibility of using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to value health states within the QLU-C10D, a utility instrument derived from the QLQ-C30, and to assess clarity, difficulty, and respondent preference between two presentation formats. Methods: We ran a DCE valuation task in an online panel (N = 430). Respondents answered 16 choice pairs; in half of these, differences between dimensions were highlighted, and in the remainder, common dimensions were described in text and differing attributes were tabulated. To simplify the cognitive task, only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed per choice set. We assessed difficulty and clarity of the valuation task with Likert-type scales, and respondents were asked which format they preferred. We analysed the DCE data by format with a conditional logit model and used Chi-squared tests to compare other responses by format. Semi-structured telephone interviews (N = 8) explored respondents’ cognitive approaches to the valuation task. Results: Four hundred and forty-nine individuals were recruited, 430 completed at least one choice set, and 422/449 (94 {\%}) completed all 16 choice sets. Interviews revealed that respondents found ten domains difficult but manageable, many adopting simplifying heuristics. Results for clarity and difficulty were identical between formats, but the “highlight” format was preferred by 68 {\%} of respondents. Conditional logit parameter estimates were monotonic within domains, suggesting respondents were able to complete the DCE sensibly, yielding valid results. Conclusion: A DCE valuation task in which only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed in any choice set is feasible for deriving utility weights for the QLU-C10D.",
keywords = "Cancer, Discrete choice experiment, QLQ-C30, Quality of life, Utility",
author = "R. Norman and R. Viney and Aaronson, {N. K.} and Brazier, {J. E.} and D. Cella and Costa, {D. S.J.} and Fayers, {P. M.} and G. Kemmler and S. Peacock and Pickard, {A. S.} and D. Rowen and Street, {D. J.} and G. Velikova and Young, {T. A.} and King, {M. T.}",
note = "Acknowledgments The MAUCa Consortium, in addition to those named as authors, consists of the following members, all of whom made some contribution to the research reported in this paper: Helen McTaggart-Cowan, Peter Grimison, Monika Janda, and Julie Pallant. This research was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) Project Grant (632662). Associate Professor Janda was supported by a NHMRC Career Development Award 1045247. Dr. Norman was supported by a NHMRC early career research fellowship (1069732). Professor King was supported by the Australian Government through Cancer Australia. Funding This research was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) Project Grant (632662). Dr. Norman was supported by a NHMRC early career research fellowship (1069732). Professor King was supported by the Australian Government through Cancer Australia.",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "637--649",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D

T2 - feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format

AU - Norman, R.

AU - Viney, R.

AU - Aaronson, N. K.

AU - Brazier, J. E.

AU - Cella, D.

AU - Costa, D. S.J.

AU - Fayers, P. M.

AU - Kemmler, G.

AU - Peacock, S.

AU - Pickard, A. S.

AU - Rowen, D.

AU - Street, D. J.

AU - Velikova, G.

AU - Young, T. A.

AU - King, M. T.

N1 - Acknowledgments The MAUCa Consortium, in addition to those named as authors, consists of the following members, all of whom made some contribution to the research reported in this paper: Helen McTaggart-Cowan, Peter Grimison, Monika Janda, and Julie Pallant. This research was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) Project Grant (632662). Associate Professor Janda was supported by a NHMRC Career Development Award 1045247. Dr. Norman was supported by a NHMRC early career research fellowship (1069732). Professor King was supported by the Australian Government through Cancer Australia. Funding This research was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) Project Grant (632662). Dr. Norman was supported by a NHMRC early career research fellowship (1069732). Professor King was supported by the Australian Government through Cancer Australia.

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Purpose: To assess the feasibility of using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to value health states within the QLU-C10D, a utility instrument derived from the QLQ-C30, and to assess clarity, difficulty, and respondent preference between two presentation formats. Methods: We ran a DCE valuation task in an online panel (N = 430). Respondents answered 16 choice pairs; in half of these, differences between dimensions were highlighted, and in the remainder, common dimensions were described in text and differing attributes were tabulated. To simplify the cognitive task, only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed per choice set. We assessed difficulty and clarity of the valuation task with Likert-type scales, and respondents were asked which format they preferred. We analysed the DCE data by format with a conditional logit model and used Chi-squared tests to compare other responses by format. Semi-structured telephone interviews (N = 8) explored respondents’ cognitive approaches to the valuation task. Results: Four hundred and forty-nine individuals were recruited, 430 completed at least one choice set, and 422/449 (94 %) completed all 16 choice sets. Interviews revealed that respondents found ten domains difficult but manageable, many adopting simplifying heuristics. Results for clarity and difficulty were identical between formats, but the “highlight” format was preferred by 68 % of respondents. Conditional logit parameter estimates were monotonic within domains, suggesting respondents were able to complete the DCE sensibly, yielding valid results. Conclusion: A DCE valuation task in which only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed in any choice set is feasible for deriving utility weights for the QLU-C10D.

AB - Purpose: To assess the feasibility of using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to value health states within the QLU-C10D, a utility instrument derived from the QLQ-C30, and to assess clarity, difficulty, and respondent preference between two presentation formats. Methods: We ran a DCE valuation task in an online panel (N = 430). Respondents answered 16 choice pairs; in half of these, differences between dimensions were highlighted, and in the remainder, common dimensions were described in text and differing attributes were tabulated. To simplify the cognitive task, only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed per choice set. We assessed difficulty and clarity of the valuation task with Likert-type scales, and respondents were asked which format they preferred. We analysed the DCE data by format with a conditional logit model and used Chi-squared tests to compare other responses by format. Semi-structured telephone interviews (N = 8) explored respondents’ cognitive approaches to the valuation task. Results: Four hundred and forty-nine individuals were recruited, 430 completed at least one choice set, and 422/449 (94 %) completed all 16 choice sets. Interviews revealed that respondents found ten domains difficult but manageable, many adopting simplifying heuristics. Results for clarity and difficulty were identical between formats, but the “highlight” format was preferred by 68 % of respondents. Conditional logit parameter estimates were monotonic within domains, suggesting respondents were able to complete the DCE sensibly, yielding valid results. Conclusion: A DCE valuation task in which only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed in any choice set is feasible for deriving utility weights for the QLU-C10D.

KW - Cancer

KW - Discrete choice experiment

KW - QLQ-C30

KW - Quality of life

KW - Utility

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958758693&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3

DO - 10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 637

EP - 649

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

IS - 3

ER -