Analytical Considerations When Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Values Using Composite Time Trade-Off Data: The Case of EQ-5D-Y-3L

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are becoming increasingly used to elicit preferences for children’s health states. However, DCE data need to be anchored to produce value sets, and composite time trade-off (cTTO) data are typically used in the context of EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation. The objective of this paper is to compare different anchoring methods, summarise the characteristics of the value sets they produce, and outline key considerations for analysts. Three anchoring methods were compared using data from published studies: (1) rescaling using the mean value for the worst health state; (2) linear mapping; and (3) hybrid modelling. The worst state rescaling value set had the largest range. The worst state rescaling and linear mapping value sets preserved the relative importance of the dimensions from the DCE, whereas the hybrid model value set did not. Overall, the predicted values from the hybrid model value set were more closely aligned with the cTTO values. These findings are relatively generalisable. Deciding upon which anchoring approach to use is challenging, as there are numerous considerations. Where cTTO data are collected for more than one health state, anchoring on the worst health state will arguably be suboptimal. However, the final choice of approach may require value judgements to be made. Researchers should seek input from relevant stakeholders when commencing valuation studies to help guide decisions and should clearly set out their rationale for their preferred anchoring approach in study outputs. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-022-01214-x.

EQ-5D-Y-3L Value Sets, Valuation Methods and Conceptual Questions

“…This special issue of Pharmacoeconomics brings together current research on valuation of EQ-5D-Y-3L that has been supported by the EuroQol Research Foundation to advance knowledge in this area. It includes six new EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets from around the world—for Germany [ 9 ], Netherlands [ 10 ], Belgium [ 11 ], Hungary [ 12 ], China [ 13 ], and Indonesia [ 14 ], in addition to three papers on related conceptual and methodological issues [ 15 – 17 ].…”

“…Others, such as China [ 13 ], Japan [ 1 ], Germany [ 9 ], Netherlands [ 10 ], and Indonesia [ 14 ] make use of all the cTTO data collected, via hybrid modelling or mapping approaches. The implications of these anchoring method choices for EQ-5D-Y-3L values are the focus of the paper by Mott et al (2022) in this issue [ 15 ], who illustrate the differences produced from these alternative ways of combining DCE and cTTO data. The authors provide grounds for arguing that anchoring just on 33333 is inferior to alternative approaches—while noting that it is difficult to conclude that definitively, since that depends in part on what characteristics are seen as desirable in a value set.…”