Dataset Information

Severity-Stratified Discrete Choice Experiment Designs for Health State Evaluations.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used for health state valuations. However, the values derived from initial DCE studies vary widely. We hypothesize that these findings indicate the presence of unknown sources of bias that must be recognized and minimized. Against this background, we studied whether values derived from a DCE are sensitive to how well the DCE design spans the severity range.

Methods

We constructed an experiment involving three variants of DCE tasks for health state valuation: standard DCE, DCE-death, and DCE-duration. For each type of DCE, an experimental design was generated under two different conditions, enabling a comparison of health state values derived from current best practice Bayesian efficient DCE designs with values derived from 'severity-stratified' designs that control for coverage of the severity range in health state selection. About 3000 respondents participated in the study and were randomly assigned to one of the six study arms.

Results

Imposing the severity-stratified restriction had a large effect on health states sampled for the DCE-duration approach. The unstratified efficient design returned a skewed distribution of selected health states, and this introduced bias. The choice probability of bad health states was underestimated, and time trade-offs to avoid bad states were overestimated, resulting in too low values. Imposing the same restriction had limited effect in the DCE-death approach and standard DCE.

Conclusion

Variation in DCE-derived values can be partially explained by differences in how well selected health states spanned the severity range. Imposing a 'severity stratification' on DCE-duration designs is a validity requirement.

SUBMITTER: Lim S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6182499 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Severity-Stratified Discrete Choice Experiment Designs for Health State Evaluations.

Lim Sesil S Jonker Marcel F MF Oppe Mark M Donkers Bas B Stolk Elly E

PharmacoEconomics 20181101 11

<h4>Background</h4>Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used for health state valuations. However, the values derived from initial DCE studies vary widely. We hypothesize that these findings indicate the presence of unknown sources of bias that must be recognized and minimized. Against this background, we studied whether values derived from a DCE are sensitive to how well the DCE design spans the severity range.<h4>Methods</h4>We constructed an experiment involving three variants ...[more]

PMID: 30030818

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeAn internet-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit preferences for a wide range of Dupuytren's contracture (DC)-related health states. An algorithm was subsequently developed to convert these preferences into health state utilities that can be used to assess DC's impact on quality of life and the value of its treatments.MethodsHealth state preferences for varying levels of DC hand severity were elicited via an internet survey from a sample of the UK adult population. Severity levels were defined using a combination of contractures (0, 45, or 90 degrees) in 8 proximal interphalangeal and metacarpophalangeal joints of the index, middle, ring, and little fingers. Right-handed, left-handed, and ambidextrous respondents indicated which hand was preferable in each of the 10 randomly-selected hand-pairings comparing different DC severity levels. For consistency across comparisons, anatomically precise digital hand drawings were used. To anchor preferences onto the traditional 0-1 utility scale used in health economic evaluations, unaffected hands were assigned a utility of 1.0 whereas the utility for a maximally affected hand (i.e., all 8 joints set at 90 degrees of contracture) was derived by asking respondents to indicate what combination of attributes and levels of the EQ-5D-5L profile most accurately reflects the impact of living with such hand. Conditional logistic models were used to estimate indirect utilities, then rescaled to the anchor points on the EQ-5D-5L.ResultsEstimated utilities based on the responses of 1,745 qualified respondents were 0.49, 0.57, and 0.63 for completely affected dominant hands, non-dominant hands, or ambidextrous hands, respectively. Utility for a dominant hand with 90-degree contracture in t h e metacarpophalangeal joints of the ring and little fingers was estimated to be 0.89. Separately, reducing the contracture of metacarpophalangeal joint for a little finger from 50 to 12 degrees would improve utility by 0.02.InterpretationDC is associated with substantial utility decrements. The algorithms presented herein provide a robust and flexible framework to assess utility for varying degrees of DC severity.

Project description:BackgroundDigital technological development in the last 20 years has led to significant growth in digital collection, use, and sharing of health data. To maintain public trust in the digital society and to enable acceptable policy-making in the future, it is important to investigate people's preferences for sharing digital health data.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to elicit the preferences of the public in different Northern European countries (the United Kingdom, Norway, Iceland, and Sweden) for sharing health information in different contexts.MethodsRespondents in this discrete choice experiment completed several choice tasks, in which they were asked if data sharing in the described hypothetical situation was acceptable to them. Latent class logistic regression models were used to determine attribute-level estimates and heterogeneity in preferences. We calculated the relative importance of the attributes and the predicted acceptability for different contexts in which the data were shared from the estimates.ResultsIn the final analysis, we used 37.83% (1967/5199) questionnaires. All attributes influenced the respondents' willingness to share health information (P<.001). The most important attribute was whether the respondents were informed about their data being shared. The possibility of opting out from sharing data was preferred over the opportunity to consent (opt-in). Four classes were identified in the latent class model, and the average probabilities of belonging were 27% for class 1, 32% for class 2, 23% for class 3, and 18% for class 4. The uptake probability varied between 14% and 85%, depending on the least to most preferred combination of levels.ConclusionsRespondents from different countries have different preferences for sharing their health data regarding the value of a review process and the reason for their new use. Offering respondents information about the use of their data and the possibility to opt out is the most preferred governance mechanism.

Project description:BackgroundRisk stratification has been proposed to improve the efficiency of population-level cancer screening. We aimed to describe and quantify the relative importance of different attributes of potential screening programs among the public, focusing on stratifying eligibility.MethodsWe conducted a discrete choice experiment in which respondents selected between 2 hypothetical screening programs in a series of 9 questions. We presented the risk factors used to determine eligibility (age, sex, or lifestyle or genetic risk scores) and anticipated outcomes based on eligibility criteria with different sensitivity and specificity levels. We performed conditional logit regression models and used the results to estimate preferences for different approaches. We also analyzed free-text comments on respondents' views on the programs.ResultsA total of 1,172 respondents completed the survey. Sensitivity was the most important attribute (7 and 11 times more important than specificity and risk factors, respectively). Eligibility criteria based on age and sex or genetics were preferred over age alone and lifestyle risk scores. Phenotypic and polygenic risk prediction models would be more acceptable than screening everyone aged 55 to 70 y if they had high discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve ≥0.75 and 0.80, respectively).LimitationsAlthough our sample was representative with respect to age, sex, and ethnicity, it may not be representative of the UK population regarding other important characteristics. Also, some respondents may have not understood all the information provided to inform decision making.ConclusionsThe public prioritized lives saved from cancer over reductions in numbers screened or experiencing unnecessary follow-up. Incorporating personal-level risk factors into screening eligibility criteria is acceptable to the public if it increases sensitivity; therefore, maximizing sensitivity in model development and communication could increase uptake.HighlightsThe public prioritized lives saved when considering changing from age-based eligibility criteria to risk-stratified cancer screening over reductions in numbers of people being screened or experiencing unnecessary follow-up.The risk stratification strategy used to do this was the least important component, although age plus sex or genetics were relatively preferable to using age alone and lifestyle risk scores.Communication strategies that emphasize improvements in the numbers of cancers detected or not missed across the population are more likely to be salient than reductions in unnecessary investigations or follow-up among some groups.Future research should focus on developing implementation strategies that maximize gains in sensitivity within the context of resource constraints and how to present attributes relating to specificity to facilitate understanding and informed decision making.

Project description:ObjectiveThe state of Vermont has a statewide waiver from the centers for medicare and medicaid services to allow all-payer Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). The Vermont all-payer model (VAPM) waiver is layered upon previous reforms establishing regional community health teams (CHTs) and medical homes. The waiver is intended to incentivize healthcare value and quality and create alignment between health system payers, providers, and CHTs. The objective of this study was to examine CHT's trade-offs and preferences for health, equity, and spending and the alignment with VAPM priorities.Data sources/study settingData were gathered from a survey and discrete choice experiment among CHT leadership and CHT team members of the 13 CHTs in Vermont.Study designWe used conditional logit models to model the choice as a function of its characteristics (attributes) and mixed logit models to analyze whether preferences for programs varied by persons and roles within CHTs.Data collection/extraction methodsThere were 60 respondents who completed the survey online with 14 choice tasks, with three program options in each task, for a total sample size of 2520.Principal findingsWe found that CHTs prioritized programs in the community health plan and those with quantitative evidence of effectiveness. They were less likely to choose either programs targeting racial and ethnic minorities or programs having a small effect on a large population. Preferences did not vary across individual or community attributes. Program priorities of the VAPM, especially healthcare spending, were not prioritized.ConclusionsThe results suggest that the new VAPM does not automatically create system alignment: CHTs tended to prioritize local needs and voices. The statewide priorities are less important to CHTs, which have excellent internal alignment. This creates potential disconnection between state and community health goals. However, CHTs and the VAPM prioritize similar populations, indicating an opportunity to increase alignment by allowing flexible programs tailored to local needs. CHTs also prioritized programs with a strong evidence base, suggesting another potential avenue to create system alignment.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity health workers (CHWs) play a critical role in supporting health systems, and in improving the availability and accessibility to health care. However, CHW programs globally continue to face challenges with poor performance and high levels of CHW attrition. CHW programs are often underfunded and poorly planned, which can lead to loss of motivation by CHWs. The study aims to determine preferences of CHWs for job incentives with the goal of furthering their motivation and success.MethodsRelevant incentive attributes were identified through focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with CHWs, non-governmental organization CHWs, CHW supervisors, and policy-level stakeholders. Based on seven attributes (eg, training, workload, stipend) we developed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) that was administered to 399 CHWs across eight districts in Uganda. We used conditional and mixed multinomial logit models to estimate the utility of each job attribute. We calculated the marginal willingness to accept as the trade-off the CHWs were willing to make for a change in salary.ResultsCHWs preferred higher salaries, though salary was not the most important attribute. There was a preference for reliable transportation, such as a bicycle (β = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.06, 2.67), motorcycle (β = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.27, 2.34) or transport allowance (β = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.65, 2.10) to no transport. Formal identification including identity badges (β = 1.61, 95% CI = 0.72, 2.49), branded uniforms (β = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.45, 1.63) and protective branded gear (β = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.32, 1.21) were preferred compared to no identification. CHWs also preferred more regular refresher trainings, the use of mobile phones as job-aids and a lesser workload. The relative importance estimates suggested that transport was the most important attribute, followed by identification, refresher training, salary, workload, recognition, and availability of tools. CHWs were willing to accept a decrease in salary of USH 31 240 (US$8.5) for identity badges, and a decrease of USH85 300 (US$23) for branded uniforms to no identification.ConclusionsThis study utilized CHW and policymaker perspectives to identify realistic and pragmatic incentives to improve CHW working conditions, which is instrumental in improving their retention. Non-monetary incentives (eg, identification, transportation) are crucial motivators for CHWs and should be considered as part of the compensation package to facilitate improved performance of CHW programs.

Dataset Information

Severity-Stratified Discrete Choice Experiment Designs for Health State Evaluations.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Severity-Stratified Discrete Choice Experiment Designs for Health State Evaluations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets