Background Health economists have shown a growing interest in deliberation and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) as possible pathways to transparently integrate value judgments in cost-utility analyses. In line with these developments, this study piloted a consensus process to derive a German value set for the Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D). In a conference setting, a group was tasked to deliberate on scores and weights for the SF-6D from the perspective of a self-determined and independent life. Methods The one-day consensus conference was based on a deliberative process in combination with the MCDA method MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique). According to MACBETH, participants were asked to qualitatively rate pairwise comparisons of SF-6D health states. The scoring within each dimension was conducted in parallel group sessions. Final agreement on the scores as well as weights for the SF-6D dimensions were derived in a subsequent plenary assembly. Results were analyzed using the software M-MACBETH and qualitative content analysis. Results A total of 34 participants were recruited. While each of the 6 small groups presented a consented score, the plenary assembly reached consensus on all dimensions apart from pain. Concerning dimension weights, some participants favored prioritizing pain and mental health. Others disputed that trade-offs between dimensions and thus assigning weights were not acceptable in a context where this may involve withholding care from someone. As a consequence, no consensus on a value set was reached. Participants identified the group size of the plenary session and the applied weighting procedure as main obstacles to the process. Conclusions This pilot study presents a consensus-based approach for valuing health-related quality of life. However, further research is needed on deliberative processes that yield quantifiable results. Future conferences should explore smaller group sizes, longer durations of the deliberative process and alternatives to the additive value function applied in MACBETH. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-019-1189-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Group deliberation can be a pathway to understanding reasons behind judgement decisions. This pilot study implemented a deliberative process to elicit public values about health‐related quality of life. In this study, participants deliberated scales and weights for a German adaption of the Short‐Form Six‐Dimension (SF‐6D) Version 2 from a public perspective. Objective This article examines the reasons participants stated for health state valuations and investigates the feasibility of eliciting public reasons for judgement decisions in a deliberative setting. Methods The 1‐day deliberation was guided by MACBETH as a method of multi‐criteria decision analysis and involved qualitative comparisons of SF‐6D health states and dimensions. Participants deliberated in parallel small groups and a subsequent plenary assembly. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to assess the value judgements and reasons behind them. Results A total of 34 students participated in the study. Common reasoning was the level of impairment, marginal benefit, possibility of adjustment and expectation satisfaction. While the small groups agreed on scales for the SF‐6D dimensions, the plenary assembly did not reach consensus on one scale and dimension weights. When dimensions were prioritized, these were pain and mental health. Conclusions While no consented value set was derived, this pilot study presents a promising approach for eliciting public reasoning behind judgements on health state values. Furthermore, it demonstrates that participants consider diverse motives when valuing health‐related quality of life.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract