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

• Published in: PharmacoEconomics 2022-12, Vol.40 (Suppl 2), p.129-137
• Main Authors: Mott, David J., Devlin, Nancy J., Kreimeier, Simone, Norman, Richard, Shah, Koonal K., Rivero-Arias, Oliver
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anniversaries; Child; Child Health; Children & youth; Childrens health; Health Administration; Health aspects; Health Economics; Health Status; Health surveys; Humans; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Methods; Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes; Practical Application; Preferences; Public Health; Quality of Life; Quality of Life Research; Regression analysis; Statistical models; Surveys; Surveys and Questionnaires; Technology assessment; Valuation
• ISSN: 1170-7690; 1179-2027
• DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01214-x

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.