Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report

Background: EQ-5D is a widely used generic measure of health with a ‘tariff’, or preference weights, obtained from the general population, using time trade-off (TTO). PRET (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project) contributes towards the methodology for its revaluation. Methods: Stage 1 examined key assumptions typically involved in health-state valuations through a series of binary choice exercises, namely that health-state preferences are independent of (1) duration of the state; (2) whose health it is (i.e. perspective); (3) length of ‘lead time’ (a mechanism to value all states on the same scale, including those who are worse than being dead); (4) when health events take place (time preference); and (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Further topics addressed were (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state; (7) health-state valuation using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with a duration attribute; and (8) binary choice administration of lead time – time trade-off (LT-TTO). Stage 1 consisted of an online survey with 6000 respondents. Stage 2 compared the results above to those of an identical survey conducted in 200 face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs), covering topics (1) to (7). Stages 3 and 4 examined – in more detail and depth – issues taken from stage 1. Stage 3 consisted of CAPI surveys of a representative UK sample of 300, using examples of TTO, LT-TTO, and DCE with duration, each followed by extensive feedback questions. Stage 4 was a more intensive exercise involving a qualitative analysis of people’s thought processes during both binary choice and iterative health-state valuation exercises. Data were collected through ‘think-aloud’ methods in 30 interviews of a convenience sample. Results: Stage 1 found that health-state values are not independent of (1) duration of the state but there is no clear pattern; (2) whose health it is; (3) the duration of ‘lead time’ but there was no clear pattern; (4) when health events take place; or (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Furthermore, (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state was subject to substantial framing effects; (7) the five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) can be valued using DCE with duration as an attribute; and (8) binary choice LT-TTO can be administered in an online environment. Stage 2 found that although online surveys and CAPI surveys resulted in different compositions of respondents, at the aggregate, their responses to the experimental questions covering (1) to (7) above were not statistically significantly different from each other. Stages 3 and 4 found that TTO and LT-TTO were easier than DCE with duration; respondents did not necessarily trade across all attributes of EQ-5D; some respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the two worst levels of EQ-5D-5L, and some respondents may be thinking about the impact of their ill health on their family. Conclusions: In order for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to make the most appropriate decisions, the EQ-5D tariff needs to incorporate the latest understanding of health-state preferences. PRET contributed to the knowledge base on the conduct of health-state valuation studies. Funding: The Medical Research Council (MRC)-National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme funded the PRET project (MRC ref. G0901500), and the EuroQol Group funded the PRET-AS project (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project – Additional Sample) as an extension to the PRET project with formal agreement from the MRC. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Brendan Mulhern [verfasserIn] Nick Bansback [verfasserIn] John Brazier [verfasserIn] Ken Buckingham [verfasserIn] John Cairns [verfasserIn] Nancy Devlin [verfasserIn] Paul Dolan [verfasserIn] Arne Risa Hole [verfasserIn] Georgios Kavetsos [verfasserIn] Louise Longworth [verfasserIn] Donna Rowen [verfasserIn] Aki Tsuchiya [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2014

Schlagwörter:	preparatory study health-state valuation preference dce with duration binary choice tto pret pret-as eq-5d eq-5d-5l methodology report

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Health Technology Assessment - NIHR Journals Library, 2018, 18(2014), 12
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:18 ; year:2014 ; number:12

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3310/hta18120

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ033128863

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ033128863
003	DE-627
005	20230503145930.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230226s2014 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3310/hta18120 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ033128863
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJd35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a R855-855.5
100	0		\|a Brendan Mulhern \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report
264		1	\|c 2014
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Background: EQ-5D is a widely used generic measure of health with a ‘tariff’, or preference weights, obtained from the general population, using time trade-off (TTO). PRET (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project) contributes towards the methodology for its revaluation. Methods: Stage 1 examined key assumptions typically involved in health-state valuations through a series of binary choice exercises, namely that health-state preferences are independent of (1) duration of the state; (2) whose health it is (i.e. perspective); (3) length of ‘lead time’ (a mechanism to value all states on the same scale, including those who are worse than being dead); (4) when health events take place (time preference); and (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Further topics addressed were (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state; (7) health-state valuation using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with a duration attribute; and (8) binary choice administration of lead time – time trade-off (LT-TTO). Stage 1 consisted of an online survey with 6000 respondents. Stage 2 compared the results above to those of an identical survey conducted in 200 face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs), covering topics (1) to (7). Stages 3 and 4 examined – in more detail and depth – issues taken from stage 1. Stage 3 consisted of CAPI surveys of a representative UK sample of 300, using examples of TTO, LT-TTO, and DCE with duration, each followed by extensive feedback questions. Stage 4 was a more intensive exercise involving a qualitative analysis of people’s thought processes during both binary choice and iterative health-state valuation exercises. Data were collected through ‘think-aloud’ methods in 30 interviews of a convenience sample. Results: Stage 1 found that health-state values are not independent of (1) duration of the state but there is no clear pattern; (2) whose health it is; (3) the duration of ‘lead time’ but there was no clear pattern; (4) when health events take place; or (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Furthermore, (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state was subject to substantial framing effects; (7) the five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) can be valued using DCE with duration as an attribute; and (8) binary choice LT-TTO can be administered in an online environment. Stage 2 found that although online surveys and CAPI surveys resulted in different compositions of respondents, at the aggregate, their responses to the experimental questions covering (1) to (7) above were not statistically significantly different from each other. Stages 3 and 4 found that TTO and LT-TTO were easier than DCE with duration; respondents did not necessarily trade across all attributes of EQ-5D; some respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the two worst levels of EQ-5D-5L, and some respondents may be thinking about the impact of their ill health on their family. Conclusions: In order for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to make the most appropriate decisions, the EQ-5D tariff needs to incorporate the latest understanding of health-state preferences. PRET contributed to the knowledge base on the conduct of health-state valuation studies. Funding: The Medical Research Council (MRC)-National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme funded the PRET project (MRC ref. G0901500), and the EuroQol Group funded the PRET-AS project (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project – Additional Sample) as an extension to the PRET project with formal agreement from the MRC.
650		4	\|a preparatory study
650		4	\|a health-state valuation
650		4	\|a preference
650		4	\|a dce with duration
650		4	\|a binary choice tto
650		4	\|a pret
650		4	\|a pret-as
650		4	\|a eq-5d
650		4	\|a eq-5d-5l
650		4	\|a methodology report
653		0	\|a Medical technology
700	0		\|a Nick Bansback \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a John Brazier \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Ken Buckingham \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a John Cairns \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Nancy Devlin \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Paul Dolan \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Arne Risa Hole \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Georgios Kavetsos \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Louise Longworth \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Donna Rowen \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Aki Tsuchiya \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Health Technology Assessment \|d NIHR Journals Library, 2018 \|g 18(2014), 12 \|w (DE-627)335259553 \|w (DE-600)2059206-1 \|x 20464924 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:18 \|g year:2014 \|g number:12
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/d35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1366-5278 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4924 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 18 \|j 2014 \|e 12

Indexfelder

author_variant	b m bm n b nb j b jb k b kb j c jc n d nd p d pd a r h arh g k gk l l ll d r dr a t at
matchkey_str	article:20464924:2014----::rprtrsuyoteeautooteqdaif
hierarchy_sort_str	2014
callnumber-subject-code	R
publishDate	2014
allfields	10.3310/hta18120 doi (DE-627)DOAJ033128863 (DE-599)DOAJd35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R855-855.5 Brendan Mulhern verfasserin aut Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: EQ-5D is a widely used generic measure of health with a ‘tariff’, or preference weights, obtained from the general population, using time trade-off (TTO). PRET (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project) contributes towards the methodology for its revaluation. Methods: Stage 1 examined key assumptions typically involved in health-state valuations through a series of binary choice exercises, namely that health-state preferences are independent of (1) duration of the state; (2) whose health it is (i.e. perspective); (3) length of ‘lead time’ (a mechanism to value all states on the same scale, including those who are worse than being dead); (4) when health events take place (time preference); and (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Further topics addressed were (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state; (7) health-state valuation using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with a duration attribute; and (8) binary choice administration of lead time – time trade-off (LT-TTO). Stage 1 consisted of an online survey with 6000 respondents. Stage 2 compared the results above to those of an identical survey conducted in 200 face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs), covering topics (1) to (7). Stages 3 and 4 examined – in more detail and depth – issues taken from stage 1. Stage 3 consisted of CAPI surveys of a representative UK sample of 300, using examples of TTO, LT-TTO, and DCE with duration, each followed by extensive feedback questions. Stage 4 was a more intensive exercise involving a qualitative analysis of people’s thought processes during both binary choice and iterative health-state valuation exercises. Data were collected through ‘think-aloud’ methods in 30 interviews of a convenience sample. Results: Stage 1 found that health-state values are not independent of (1) duration of the state but there is no clear pattern; (2) whose health it is; (3) the duration of ‘lead time’ but there was no clear pattern; (4) when health events take place; or (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Furthermore, (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state was subject to substantial framing effects; (7) the five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) can be valued using DCE with duration as an attribute; and (8) binary choice LT-TTO can be administered in an online environment. Stage 2 found that although online surveys and CAPI surveys resulted in different compositions of respondents, at the aggregate, their responses to the experimental questions covering (1) to (7) above were not statistically significantly different from each other. Stages 3 and 4 found that TTO and LT-TTO were easier than DCE with duration; respondents did not necessarily trade across all attributes of EQ-5D; some respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the two worst levels of EQ-5D-5L, and some respondents may be thinking about the impact of their ill health on their family. Conclusions: In order for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to make the most appropriate decisions, the EQ-5D tariff needs to incorporate the latest understanding of health-state preferences. PRET contributed to the knowledge base on the conduct of health-state valuation studies. Funding: The Medical Research Council (MRC)-National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme funded the PRET project (MRC ref. G0901500), and the EuroQol Group funded the PRET-AS project (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project – Additional Sample) as an extension to the PRET project with formal agreement from the MRC. preparatory study health-state valuation preference dce with duration binary choice tto pret pret-as eq-5d eq-5d-5l methodology report Medical technology Nick Bansback verfasserin aut John Brazier verfasserin aut Ken Buckingham verfasserin aut John Cairns verfasserin aut Nancy Devlin verfasserin aut Paul Dolan verfasserin aut Arne Risa Hole verfasserin aut Georgios Kavetsos verfasserin aut Louise Longworth verfasserin aut Donna Rowen verfasserin aut Aki Tsuchiya verfasserin aut In Health Technology Assessment NIHR Journals Library, 2018 18(2014), 12 (DE-627)335259553 (DE-600)2059206-1 20464924 nnns volume:18 year:2014 number:12 https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1366-5278 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4924 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2014 12
spelling	10.3310/hta18120 doi (DE-627)DOAJ033128863 (DE-599)DOAJd35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R855-855.5 Brendan Mulhern verfasserin aut Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: EQ-5D is a widely used generic measure of health with a ‘tariff’, or preference weights, obtained from the general population, using time trade-off (TTO). PRET (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project) contributes towards the methodology for its revaluation. Methods: Stage 1 examined key assumptions typically involved in health-state valuations through a series of binary choice exercises, namely that health-state preferences are independent of (1) duration of the state; (2) whose health it is (i.e. perspective); (3) length of ‘lead time’ (a mechanism to value all states on the same scale, including those who are worse than being dead); (4) when health events take place (time preference); and (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Further topics addressed were (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state; (7) health-state valuation using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with a duration attribute; and (8) binary choice administration of lead time – time trade-off (LT-TTO). Stage 1 consisted of an online survey with 6000 respondents. Stage 2 compared the results above to those of an identical survey conducted in 200 face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs), covering topics (1) to (7). Stages 3 and 4 examined – in more detail and depth – issues taken from stage 1. Stage 3 consisted of CAPI surveys of a representative UK sample of 300, using examples of TTO, LT-TTO, and DCE with duration, each followed by extensive feedback questions. Stage 4 was a more intensive exercise involving a qualitative analysis of people’s thought processes during both binary choice and iterative health-state valuation exercises. Data were collected through ‘think-aloud’ methods in 30 interviews of a convenience sample. Results: Stage 1 found that health-state values are not independent of (1) duration of the state but there is no clear pattern; (2) whose health it is; (3) the duration of ‘lead time’ but there was no clear pattern; (4) when health events take place; or (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Furthermore, (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state was subject to substantial framing effects; (7) the five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) can be valued using DCE with duration as an attribute; and (8) binary choice LT-TTO can be administered in an online environment. Stage 2 found that although online surveys and CAPI surveys resulted in different compositions of respondents, at the aggregate, their responses to the experimental questions covering (1) to (7) above were not statistically significantly different from each other. Stages 3 and 4 found that TTO and LT-TTO were easier than DCE with duration; respondents did not necessarily trade across all attributes of EQ-5D; some respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the two worst levels of EQ-5D-5L, and some respondents may be thinking about the impact of their ill health on their family. Conclusions: In order for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to make the most appropriate decisions, the EQ-5D tariff needs to incorporate the latest understanding of health-state preferences. PRET contributed to the knowledge base on the conduct of health-state valuation studies. Funding: The Medical Research Council (MRC)-National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme funded the PRET project (MRC ref. G0901500), and the EuroQol Group funded the PRET-AS project (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project – Additional Sample) as an extension to the PRET project with formal agreement from the MRC. preparatory study health-state valuation preference dce with duration binary choice tto pret pret-as eq-5d eq-5d-5l methodology report Medical technology Nick Bansback verfasserin aut John Brazier verfasserin aut Ken Buckingham verfasserin aut John Cairns verfasserin aut Nancy Devlin verfasserin aut Paul Dolan verfasserin aut Arne Risa Hole verfasserin aut Georgios Kavetsos verfasserin aut Louise Longworth verfasserin aut Donna Rowen verfasserin aut Aki Tsuchiya verfasserin aut In Health Technology Assessment NIHR Journals Library, 2018 18(2014), 12 (DE-627)335259553 (DE-600)2059206-1 20464924 nnns volume:18 year:2014 number:12 https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1366-5278 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4924 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2014 12
allfields_unstemmed	10.3310/hta18120 doi (DE-627)DOAJ033128863 (DE-599)DOAJd35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R855-855.5 Brendan Mulhern verfasserin aut Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: EQ-5D is a widely used generic measure of health with a ‘tariff’, or preference weights, obtained from the general population, using time trade-off (TTO). PRET (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project) contributes towards the methodology for its revaluation. Methods: Stage 1 examined key assumptions typically involved in health-state valuations through a series of binary choice exercises, namely that health-state preferences are independent of (1) duration of the state; (2) whose health it is (i.e. perspective); (3) length of ‘lead time’ (a mechanism to value all states on the same scale, including those who are worse than being dead); (4) when health events take place (time preference); and (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Further topics addressed were (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state; (7) health-state valuation using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with a duration attribute; and (8) binary choice administration of lead time – time trade-off (LT-TTO). Stage 1 consisted of an online survey with 6000 respondents. Stage 2 compared the results above to those of an identical survey conducted in 200 face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs), covering topics (1) to (7). Stages 3 and 4 examined – in more detail and depth – issues taken from stage 1. Stage 3 consisted of CAPI surveys of a representative UK sample of 300, using examples of TTO, LT-TTO, and DCE with duration, each followed by extensive feedback questions. Stage 4 was a more intensive exercise involving a qualitative analysis of people’s thought processes during both binary choice and iterative health-state valuation exercises. Data were collected through ‘think-aloud’ methods in 30 interviews of a convenience sample. Results: Stage 1 found that health-state values are not independent of (1) duration of the state but there is no clear pattern; (2) whose health it is; (3) the duration of ‘lead time’ but there was no clear pattern; (4) when health events take place; or (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Furthermore, (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state was subject to substantial framing effects; (7) the five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) can be valued using DCE with duration as an attribute; and (8) binary choice LT-TTO can be administered in an online environment. Stage 2 found that although online surveys and CAPI surveys resulted in different compositions of respondents, at the aggregate, their responses to the experimental questions covering (1) to (7) above were not statistically significantly different from each other. Stages 3 and 4 found that TTO and LT-TTO were easier than DCE with duration; respondents did not necessarily trade across all attributes of EQ-5D; some respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the two worst levels of EQ-5D-5L, and some respondents may be thinking about the impact of their ill health on their family. Conclusions: In order for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to make the most appropriate decisions, the EQ-5D tariff needs to incorporate the latest understanding of health-state preferences. PRET contributed to the knowledge base on the conduct of health-state valuation studies. Funding: The Medical Research Council (MRC)-National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme funded the PRET project (MRC ref. G0901500), and the EuroQol Group funded the PRET-AS project (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project – Additional Sample) as an extension to the PRET project with formal agreement from the MRC. preparatory study health-state valuation preference dce with duration binary choice tto pret pret-as eq-5d eq-5d-5l methodology report Medical technology Nick Bansback verfasserin aut John Brazier verfasserin aut Ken Buckingham verfasserin aut John Cairns verfasserin aut Nancy Devlin verfasserin aut Paul Dolan verfasserin aut Arne Risa Hole verfasserin aut Georgios Kavetsos verfasserin aut Louise Longworth verfasserin aut Donna Rowen verfasserin aut Aki Tsuchiya verfasserin aut In Health Technology Assessment NIHR Journals Library, 2018 18(2014), 12 (DE-627)335259553 (DE-600)2059206-1 20464924 nnns volume:18 year:2014 number:12 https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1366-5278 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4924 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2014 12
allfieldsGer	10.3310/hta18120 doi (DE-627)DOAJ033128863 (DE-599)DOAJd35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R855-855.5 Brendan Mulhern verfasserin aut Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: EQ-5D is a widely used generic measure of health with a ‘tariff’, or preference weights, obtained from the general population, using time trade-off (TTO). PRET (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project) contributes towards the methodology for its revaluation. Methods: Stage 1 examined key assumptions typically involved in health-state valuations through a series of binary choice exercises, namely that health-state preferences are independent of (1) duration of the state; (2) whose health it is (i.e. perspective); (3) length of ‘lead time’ (a mechanism to value all states on the same scale, including those who are worse than being dead); (4) when health events take place (time preference); and (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Further topics addressed were (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state; (7) health-state valuation using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with a duration attribute; and (8) binary choice administration of lead time – time trade-off (LT-TTO). Stage 1 consisted of an online survey with 6000 respondents. Stage 2 compared the results above to those of an identical survey conducted in 200 face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs), covering topics (1) to (7). Stages 3 and 4 examined – in more detail and depth – issues taken from stage 1. Stage 3 consisted of CAPI surveys of a representative UK sample of 300, using examples of TTO, LT-TTO, and DCE with duration, each followed by extensive feedback questions. Stage 4 was a more intensive exercise involving a qualitative analysis of people’s thought processes during both binary choice and iterative health-state valuation exercises. Data were collected through ‘think-aloud’ methods in 30 interviews of a convenience sample. Results: Stage 1 found that health-state values are not independent of (1) duration of the state but there is no clear pattern; (2) whose health it is; (3) the duration of ‘lead time’ but there was no clear pattern; (4) when health events take place; or (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Furthermore, (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state was subject to substantial framing effects; (7) the five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) can be valued using DCE with duration as an attribute; and (8) binary choice LT-TTO can be administered in an online environment. Stage 2 found that although online surveys and CAPI surveys resulted in different compositions of respondents, at the aggregate, their responses to the experimental questions covering (1) to (7) above were not statistically significantly different from each other. Stages 3 and 4 found that TTO and LT-TTO were easier than DCE with duration; respondents did not necessarily trade across all attributes of EQ-5D; some respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the two worst levels of EQ-5D-5L, and some respondents may be thinking about the impact of their ill health on their family. Conclusions: In order for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to make the most appropriate decisions, the EQ-5D tariff needs to incorporate the latest understanding of health-state preferences. PRET contributed to the knowledge base on the conduct of health-state valuation studies. Funding: The Medical Research Council (MRC)-National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme funded the PRET project (MRC ref. G0901500), and the EuroQol Group funded the PRET-AS project (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project – Additional Sample) as an extension to the PRET project with formal agreement from the MRC. preparatory study health-state valuation preference dce with duration binary choice tto pret pret-as eq-5d eq-5d-5l methodology report Medical technology Nick Bansback verfasserin aut John Brazier verfasserin aut Ken Buckingham verfasserin aut John Cairns verfasserin aut Nancy Devlin verfasserin aut Paul Dolan verfasserin aut Arne Risa Hole verfasserin aut Georgios Kavetsos verfasserin aut Louise Longworth verfasserin aut Donna Rowen verfasserin aut Aki Tsuchiya verfasserin aut In Health Technology Assessment NIHR Journals Library, 2018 18(2014), 12 (DE-627)335259553 (DE-600)2059206-1 20464924 nnns volume:18 year:2014 number:12 https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1366-5278 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4924 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2014 12
allfieldsSound	10.3310/hta18120 doi (DE-627)DOAJ033128863 (DE-599)DOAJd35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R855-855.5 Brendan Mulhern verfasserin aut Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: EQ-5D is a widely used generic measure of health with a ‘tariff’, or preference weights, obtained from the general population, using time trade-off (TTO). PRET (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project) contributes towards the methodology for its revaluation. Methods: Stage 1 examined key assumptions typically involved in health-state valuations through a series of binary choice exercises, namely that health-state preferences are independent of (1) duration of the state; (2) whose health it is (i.e. perspective); (3) length of ‘lead time’ (a mechanism to value all states on the same scale, including those who are worse than being dead); (4) when health events take place (time preference); and (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Further topics addressed were (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state; (7) health-state valuation using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with a duration attribute; and (8) binary choice administration of lead time – time trade-off (LT-TTO). Stage 1 consisted of an online survey with 6000 respondents. Stage 2 compared the results above to those of an identical survey conducted in 200 face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs), covering topics (1) to (7). Stages 3 and 4 examined – in more detail and depth – issues taken from stage 1. Stage 3 consisted of CAPI surveys of a representative UK sample of 300, using examples of TTO, LT-TTO, and DCE with duration, each followed by extensive feedback questions. Stage 4 was a more intensive exercise involving a qualitative analysis of people’s thought processes during both binary choice and iterative health-state valuation exercises. Data were collected through ‘think-aloud’ methods in 30 interviews of a convenience sample. Results: Stage 1 found that health-state values are not independent of (1) duration of the state but there is no clear pattern; (2) whose health it is; (3) the duration of ‘lead time’ but there was no clear pattern; (4) when health events take place; or (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Furthermore, (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state was subject to substantial framing effects; (7) the five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) can be valued using DCE with duration as an attribute; and (8) binary choice LT-TTO can be administered in an online environment. Stage 2 found that although online surveys and CAPI surveys resulted in different compositions of respondents, at the aggregate, their responses to the experimental questions covering (1) to (7) above were not statistically significantly different from each other. Stages 3 and 4 found that TTO and LT-TTO were easier than DCE with duration; respondents did not necessarily trade across all attributes of EQ-5D; some respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the two worst levels of EQ-5D-5L, and some respondents may be thinking about the impact of their ill health on their family. Conclusions: In order for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to make the most appropriate decisions, the EQ-5D tariff needs to incorporate the latest understanding of health-state preferences. PRET contributed to the knowledge base on the conduct of health-state valuation studies. Funding: The Medical Research Council (MRC)-National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme funded the PRET project (MRC ref. G0901500), and the EuroQol Group funded the PRET-AS project (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project – Additional Sample) as an extension to the PRET project with formal agreement from the MRC. preparatory study health-state valuation preference dce with duration binary choice tto pret pret-as eq-5d eq-5d-5l methodology report Medical technology Nick Bansback verfasserin aut John Brazier verfasserin aut Ken Buckingham verfasserin aut John Cairns verfasserin aut Nancy Devlin verfasserin aut Paul Dolan verfasserin aut Arne Risa Hole verfasserin aut Georgios Kavetsos verfasserin aut Louise Longworth verfasserin aut Donna Rowen verfasserin aut Aki Tsuchiya verfasserin aut In Health Technology Assessment NIHR Journals Library, 2018 18(2014), 12 (DE-627)335259553 (DE-600)2059206-1 20464924 nnns volume:18 year:2014 number:12 https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/d35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1366-5278 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4924 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 18 2014 12
language	English
source	In Health Technology Assessment 18(2014), 12 volume:18 year:2014 number:12
sourceStr	In Health Technology Assessment 18(2014), 12 volume:18 year:2014 number:12
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	preparatory study health-state valuation preference dce with duration binary choice tto pret pret-as eq-5d eq-5d-5l methodology report Medical technology
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Health Technology Assessment
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Brendan Mulhern @@aut@@ Nick Bansback @@aut@@ John Brazier @@aut@@ Ken Buckingham @@aut@@ John Cairns @@aut@@ Nancy Devlin @@aut@@ Paul Dolan @@aut@@ Arne Risa Hole @@aut@@ Georgios Kavetsos @@aut@@ Louise Longworth @@aut@@ Donna Rowen @@aut@@ Aki Tsuchiya @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2014-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	335259553
id	DOAJ033128863
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ033128863</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503145930.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2014 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3310/hta18120</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ033128863</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJd35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R855-855.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Brendan Mulhern</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: EQ-5D is a widely used generic measure of health with a ‘tariff’, or preference weights, obtained from the general population, using time trade-off (TTO). PRET (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project) contributes towards the methodology for its revaluation. Methods: Stage 1 examined key assumptions typically involved in health-state valuations through a series of binary choice exercises, namely that health-state preferences are independent of (1) duration of the state; (2) whose health it is (i.e. perspective); (3) length of ‘lead time’ (a mechanism to value all states on the same scale, including those who are worse than being dead); (4) when health events take place (time preference); and (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Further topics addressed were (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state; (7) health-state valuation using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with a duration attribute; and (8) binary choice administration of lead time – time trade-off (LT-TTO). Stage 1 consisted of an online survey with 6000 respondents. Stage 2 compared the results above to those of an identical survey conducted in 200 face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs), covering topics (1) to (7). Stages 3 and 4 examined – in more detail and depth – issues taken from stage 1. Stage 3 consisted of CAPI surveys of a representative UK sample of 300, using examples of TTO, LT-TTO, and DCE with duration, each followed by extensive feedback questions. Stage 4 was a more intensive exercise involving a qualitative analysis of people’s thought processes during both binary choice and iterative health-state valuation exercises. Data were collected through ‘think-aloud’ methods in 30 interviews of a convenience sample. Results: Stage 1 found that health-state values are not independent of (1) duration of the state but there is no clear pattern; (2) whose health it is; (3) the duration of ‘lead time’ but there was no clear pattern; (4) when health events take place; or (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Furthermore, (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state was subject to substantial framing effects; (7) the five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) can be valued using DCE with duration as an attribute; and (8) binary choice LT-TTO can be administered in an online environment. Stage 2 found that although online surveys and CAPI surveys resulted in different compositions of respondents, at the aggregate, their responses to the experimental questions covering (1) to (7) above were not statistically significantly different from each other. Stages 3 and 4 found that TTO and LT-TTO were easier than DCE with duration; respondents did not necessarily trade across all attributes of EQ-5D; some respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the two worst levels of EQ-5D-5L, and some respondents may be thinking about the impact of their ill health on their family. Conclusions: In order for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to make the most appropriate decisions, the EQ-5D tariff needs to incorporate the latest understanding of health-state preferences. PRET contributed to the knowledge base on the conduct of health-state valuation studies. Funding: The Medical Research Council (MRC)-National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme funded the PRET project (MRC ref. G0901500), and the EuroQol Group funded the PRET-AS project (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project – Additional Sample) as an extension to the PRET project with formal agreement from the MRC.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">preparatory study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">health-state valuation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">preference</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">dce with duration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">binary choice tto</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">pret</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">pret-as</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">eq-5d</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">eq-5d-5l</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">methodology report</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medical technology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nick Bansback</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John Brazier</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ken Buckingham</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John Cairns</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nancy Devlin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paul Dolan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arne Risa Hole</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Georgios Kavetsos</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Louise Longworth</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Donna Rowen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Aki Tsuchiya</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Health Technology Assessment</subfield><subfield code="d">NIHR Journals Library, 2018</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2014), 12</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)335259553</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2059206-1</subfield><subfield code="x">20464924</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/d35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1366-5278</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4924</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">12</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Brendan Mulhern
spellingShingle	Brendan Mulhern misc R855-855.5 misc preparatory study misc health-state valuation misc preference misc dce with duration misc binary choice tto misc pret misc pret-as misc eq-5d misc eq-5d-5l misc methodology report misc Medical technology Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report
authorStr	Brendan Mulhern
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)335259553
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	R855-855
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	20464924
topic_title	R855-855.5 Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report preparatory study health-state valuation preference dce with duration binary choice tto pret pret-as eq-5d eq-5d-5l methodology report
topic	misc R855-855.5 misc preparatory study misc health-state valuation misc preference misc dce with duration misc binary choice tto misc pret misc pret-as misc eq-5d misc eq-5d-5l misc methodology report misc Medical technology
topic_unstemmed	misc R855-855.5 misc preparatory study misc health-state valuation misc preference misc dce with duration misc binary choice tto misc pret misc pret-as misc eq-5d misc eq-5d-5l misc methodology report misc Medical technology
topic_browse	misc R855-855.5 misc preparatory study misc health-state valuation misc preference misc dce with duration misc binary choice tto misc pret misc pret-as misc eq-5d misc eq-5d-5l misc methodology report misc Medical technology
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Health Technology Assessment
hierarchy_parent_id	335259553
hierarchy_top_title	Health Technology Assessment
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)335259553 (DE-600)2059206-1
title	Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ033128863 (DE-599)DOAJd35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba
title_full	Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report
author_sort	Brendan Mulhern
journal	Health Technology Assessment
journalStr	Health Technology Assessment
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2014
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Brendan Mulhern Nick Bansback John Brazier Ken Buckingham John Cairns Nancy Devlin Paul Dolan Arne Risa Hole Georgios Kavetsos Louise Longworth Donna Rowen Aki Tsuchiya
container_volume	18
class	R855-855.5
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Brendan Mulhern
doi_str_mv	10.3310/hta18120
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	preparatory study for the revaluation of the eq-5d tariff: methodology report
callnumber	R855-855.5
title_auth	Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report
abstract	Background: EQ-5D is a widely used generic measure of health with a ‘tariff’, or preference weights, obtained from the general population, using time trade-off (TTO). PRET (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project) contributes towards the methodology for its revaluation. Methods: Stage 1 examined key assumptions typically involved in health-state valuations through a series of binary choice exercises, namely that health-state preferences are independent of (1) duration of the state; (2) whose health it is (i.e. perspective); (3) length of ‘lead time’ (a mechanism to value all states on the same scale, including those who are worse than being dead); (4) when health events take place (time preference); and (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Further topics addressed were (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state; (7) health-state valuation using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with a duration attribute; and (8) binary choice administration of lead time – time trade-off (LT-TTO). Stage 1 consisted of an online survey with 6000 respondents. Stage 2 compared the results above to those of an identical survey conducted in 200 face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs), covering topics (1) to (7). Stages 3 and 4 examined – in more detail and depth – issues taken from stage 1. Stage 3 consisted of CAPI surveys of a representative UK sample of 300, using examples of TTO, LT-TTO, and DCE with duration, each followed by extensive feedback questions. Stage 4 was a more intensive exercise involving a qualitative analysis of people’s thought processes during both binary choice and iterative health-state valuation exercises. Data were collected through ‘think-aloud’ methods in 30 interviews of a convenience sample. Results: Stage 1 found that health-state values are not independent of (1) duration of the state but there is no clear pattern; (2) whose health it is; (3) the duration of ‘lead time’ but there was no clear pattern; (4) when health events take place; or (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Furthermore, (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state was subject to substantial framing effects; (7) the five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) can be valued using DCE with duration as an attribute; and (8) binary choice LT-TTO can be administered in an online environment. Stage 2 found that although online surveys and CAPI surveys resulted in different compositions of respondents, at the aggregate, their responses to the experimental questions covering (1) to (7) above were not statistically significantly different from each other. Stages 3 and 4 found that TTO and LT-TTO were easier than DCE with duration; respondents did not necessarily trade across all attributes of EQ-5D; some respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the two worst levels of EQ-5D-5L, and some respondents may be thinking about the impact of their ill health on their family. Conclusions: In order for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to make the most appropriate decisions, the EQ-5D tariff needs to incorporate the latest understanding of health-state preferences. PRET contributed to the knowledge base on the conduct of health-state valuation studies. Funding: The Medical Research Council (MRC)-National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme funded the PRET project (MRC ref. G0901500), and the EuroQol Group funded the PRET-AS project (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project – Additional Sample) as an extension to the PRET project with formal agreement from the MRC.
abstractGer	Background: EQ-5D is a widely used generic measure of health with a ‘tariff’, or preference weights, obtained from the general population, using time trade-off (TTO). PRET (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project) contributes towards the methodology for its revaluation. Methods: Stage 1 examined key assumptions typically involved in health-state valuations through a series of binary choice exercises, namely that health-state preferences are independent of (1) duration of the state; (2) whose health it is (i.e. perspective); (3) length of ‘lead time’ (a mechanism to value all states on the same scale, including those who are worse than being dead); (4) when health events take place (time preference); and (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Further topics addressed were (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state; (7) health-state valuation using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with a duration attribute; and (8) binary choice administration of lead time – time trade-off (LT-TTO). Stage 1 consisted of an online survey with 6000 respondents. Stage 2 compared the results above to those of an identical survey conducted in 200 face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs), covering topics (1) to (7). Stages 3 and 4 examined – in more detail and depth – issues taken from stage 1. Stage 3 consisted of CAPI surveys of a representative UK sample of 300, using examples of TTO, LT-TTO, and DCE with duration, each followed by extensive feedback questions. Stage 4 was a more intensive exercise involving a qualitative analysis of people’s thought processes during both binary choice and iterative health-state valuation exercises. Data were collected through ‘think-aloud’ methods in 30 interviews of a convenience sample. Results: Stage 1 found that health-state values are not independent of (1) duration of the state but there is no clear pattern; (2) whose health it is; (3) the duration of ‘lead time’ but there was no clear pattern; (4) when health events take place; or (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Furthermore, (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state was subject to substantial framing effects; (7) the five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) can be valued using DCE with duration as an attribute; and (8) binary choice LT-TTO can be administered in an online environment. Stage 2 found that although online surveys and CAPI surveys resulted in different compositions of respondents, at the aggregate, their responses to the experimental questions covering (1) to (7) above were not statistically significantly different from each other. Stages 3 and 4 found that TTO and LT-TTO were easier than DCE with duration; respondents did not necessarily trade across all attributes of EQ-5D; some respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the two worst levels of EQ-5D-5L, and some respondents may be thinking about the impact of their ill health on their family. Conclusions: In order for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to make the most appropriate decisions, the EQ-5D tariff needs to incorporate the latest understanding of health-state preferences. PRET contributed to the knowledge base on the conduct of health-state valuation studies. Funding: The Medical Research Council (MRC)-National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme funded the PRET project (MRC ref. G0901500), and the EuroQol Group funded the PRET-AS project (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project – Additional Sample) as an extension to the PRET project with formal agreement from the MRC.
abstract_unstemmed	Background: EQ-5D is a widely used generic measure of health with a ‘tariff’, or preference weights, obtained from the general population, using time trade-off (TTO). PRET (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project) contributes towards the methodology for its revaluation. Methods: Stage 1 examined key assumptions typically involved in health-state valuations through a series of binary choice exercises, namely that health-state preferences are independent of (1) duration of the state; (2) whose health it is (i.e. perspective); (3) length of ‘lead time’ (a mechanism to value all states on the same scale, including those who are worse than being dead); (4) when health events take place (time preference); and (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Further topics addressed were (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state; (7) health-state valuation using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with a duration attribute; and (8) binary choice administration of lead time – time trade-off (LT-TTO). Stage 1 consisted of an online survey with 6000 respondents. Stage 2 compared the results above to those of an identical survey conducted in 200 face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs), covering topics (1) to (7). Stages 3 and 4 examined – in more detail and depth – issues taken from stage 1. Stage 3 consisted of CAPI surveys of a representative UK sample of 300, using examples of TTO, LT-TTO, and DCE with duration, each followed by extensive feedback questions. Stage 4 was a more intensive exercise involving a qualitative analysis of people’s thought processes during both binary choice and iterative health-state valuation exercises. Data were collected through ‘think-aloud’ methods in 30 interviews of a convenience sample. Results: Stage 1 found that health-state values are not independent of (1) duration of the state but there is no clear pattern; (2) whose health it is; (3) the duration of ‘lead time’ but there was no clear pattern; (4) when health events take place; or (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Furthermore, (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state was subject to substantial framing effects; (7) the five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) can be valued using DCE with duration as an attribute; and (8) binary choice LT-TTO can be administered in an online environment. Stage 2 found that although online surveys and CAPI surveys resulted in different compositions of respondents, at the aggregate, their responses to the experimental questions covering (1) to (7) above were not statistically significantly different from each other. Stages 3 and 4 found that TTO and LT-TTO were easier than DCE with duration; respondents did not necessarily trade across all attributes of EQ-5D; some respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the two worst levels of EQ-5D-5L, and some respondents may be thinking about the impact of their ill health on their family. Conclusions: In order for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to make the most appropriate decisions, the EQ-5D tariff needs to incorporate the latest understanding of health-state preferences. PRET contributed to the knowledge base on the conduct of health-state valuation studies. Funding: The Medical Research Council (MRC)-National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme funded the PRET project (MRC ref. G0901500), and the EuroQol Group funded the PRET-AS project (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project – Additional Sample) as an extension to the PRET project with formal agreement from the MRC.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	12
title_short	Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report
url	https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120 https://doaj.org/article/d35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba https://doaj.org/toc/1366-5278 https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4924
remote_bool	true
author2	Nick Bansback John Brazier Ken Buckingham John Cairns Nancy Devlin Paul Dolan Arne Risa Hole Georgios Kavetsos Louise Longworth Donna Rowen Aki Tsuchiya
author2Str	Nick Bansback John Brazier Ken Buckingham John Cairns Nancy Devlin Paul Dolan Arne Risa Hole Georgios Kavetsos Louise Longworth Donna Rowen Aki Tsuchiya
ppnlink	335259553
callnumber-subject	R - General Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3310/hta18120
callnumber-a	R855-855.5
up_date	2024-07-03T15:58:58.760Z
_version_	1803574143891800064
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ033128863</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503145930.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2014 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3310/hta18120</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ033128863</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJd35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R855-855.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Brendan Mulhern</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: EQ-5D is a widely used generic measure of health with a ‘tariff’, or preference weights, obtained from the general population, using time trade-off (TTO). PRET (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project) contributes towards the methodology for its revaluation. Methods: Stage 1 examined key assumptions typically involved in health-state valuations through a series of binary choice exercises, namely that health-state preferences are independent of (1) duration of the state; (2) whose health it is (i.e. perspective); (3) length of ‘lead time’ (a mechanism to value all states on the same scale, including those who are worse than being dead); (4) when health events take place (time preference); and (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Further topics addressed were (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state; (7) health-state valuation using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) with a duration attribute; and (8) binary choice administration of lead time – time trade-off (LT-TTO). Stage 1 consisted of an online survey with 6000 respondents. Stage 2 compared the results above to those of an identical survey conducted in 200 face-to-face computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPIs), covering topics (1) to (7). Stages 3 and 4 examined – in more detail and depth – issues taken from stage 1. Stage 3 consisted of CAPI surveys of a representative UK sample of 300, using examples of TTO, LT-TTO, and DCE with duration, each followed by extensive feedback questions. Stage 4 was a more intensive exercise involving a qualitative analysis of people’s thought processes during both binary choice and iterative health-state valuation exercises. Data were collected through ‘think-aloud’ methods in 30 interviews of a convenience sample. Results: Stage 1 found that health-state values are not independent of (1) duration of the state but there is no clear pattern; (2) whose health it is; (3) the duration of ‘lead time’ but there was no clear pattern; (4) when health events take place; or (5) satisfaction associated with the state. Furthermore, (6) exhaustion of lead time in the worst state was subject to substantial framing effects; (7) the five-level version of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) can be valued using DCE with duration as an attribute; and (8) binary choice LT-TTO can be administered in an online environment. Stage 2 found that although online surveys and CAPI surveys resulted in different compositions of respondents, at the aggregate, their responses to the experimental questions covering (1) to (7) above were not statistically significantly different from each other. Stages 3 and 4 found that TTO and LT-TTO were easier than DCE with duration; respondents did not necessarily trade across all attributes of EQ-5D; some respondents found it difficult to distinguish between the two worst levels of EQ-5D-5L, and some respondents may be thinking about the impact of their ill health on their family. Conclusions: In order for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to make the most appropriate decisions, the EQ-5D tariff needs to incorporate the latest understanding of health-state preferences. PRET contributed to the knowledge base on the conduct of health-state valuation studies. Funding: The Medical Research Council (MRC)-National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Methodology Research Programme funded the PRET project (MRC ref. G0901500), and the EuroQol Group funded the PRET-AS project (Preparatory study for the Re-valuation of the EQ-5D Tariff project – Additional Sample) as an extension to the PRET project with formal agreement from the MRC.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">preparatory study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">health-state valuation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">preference</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">dce with duration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">binary choice tto</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">pret</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">pret-as</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">eq-5d</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">eq-5d-5l</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">methodology report</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medical technology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nick Bansback</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John Brazier</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ken Buckingham</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John Cairns</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nancy Devlin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paul Dolan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Arne Risa Hole</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Georgios Kavetsos</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Louise Longworth</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Donna Rowen</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Aki Tsuchiya</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Health Technology Assessment</subfield><subfield code="d">NIHR Journals Library, 2018</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2014), 12</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)335259553</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2059206-1</subfield><subfield code="x">20464924</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/d35fb1051cb644cd84a3d1539ef33bba</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18120</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1366-5278</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4924</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">12</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3982353

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?