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
C2 - 26342928
AN - SCOPUS:84958758693
VL - 25
SP - 637
EP - 649
JO - Quality of Life Research
JF - Quality of Life Research
SN - 0962-9343
IS - 3
ER -