A novel approach for health state valuation: Multiple bounded dichotomous choice compared to the traditional standard gamble
Thomas G Poder,Hosein Ameri
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117173
Abstract:Objective: to assess the feasibility of a new stated preference approach, the multiple bounded dichotomous choice (MBDC), designed to generate value sets for preference-based measurement of health-related quality of life. Methods: MBDC and standard gamble (SG) tasks were completed to derive SF-6Dv2 value sets from a sample of the general population in Quebec, Canada. Participants were randomized between the two approaches: 6 health states were evaluated in SG and 11 health states in MBDC. Several models were used to estimate data in each approach, and the preferred models were chosen by using mean absolute error (MAE), logical consistency of parameters, and significance levels. Results of MBDC were compared with SG in terms of acceptability (self-reported difficulty and quality levels in answering, and completion time), consistency (monotonicity of model coefficients), accuracy (standard errors), dimensions coefficient magnitude, correlation between the value sets estimated, and the range of estimated values. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was computed to assess value sets' consistency. Results: Out of 655 individuals who completed MBDC tasks and 828 who completed SG tasks, a total of 585 participants for MBDC and 714 for SG tasks were included for analysis. The preferred models for both approaches were GLS Tobit. No significant difference was observed in self-reported difficulties and qualities in answers among approaches, but MBDC had less excluded participants and was less prone to report difficulties in answering. Additionally, completion time in the MBDC group was significantly lower (99.80 vs 68.12 s). Most standard errors in the MBDC were lower than those in SG, and the number of non-significant parameters was also lower. The range of utility values generated by MBDC tended to be wider (-0.372 to 1) than those generated by the SG (-0.137 to 1) and the number of worse-than-dead states in MBDC (0.91%) was higher than for SG (0.08%). The Pain dimension was identified as the most significant, while the Vitality dimension showed the lowest significant decrement. Both approaches exhibited a tendency to overestimate severe health state values and underestimate better health state values. The correlation and ICC between the two value sets were 0.937 and 0.983, respectively. Conclusion: Based on empirical evidence, it can be inferred that the MBDC method is not only feasible but also holds the potential to generate meaningful and well-informed preference data from respondents. This approach can be used to derive a value set for preference-based instrument.