2014-05-21
The Better than Dead Method: Feasibility and Interpretation of a Valuation Study
Publication
Publication
Background Traditionally, the valuation of health states worse than being dead suffers from two problems: [1] the use of different elicitation methods for positive and negative values, necessitating arbitrary transformations to map negative to positive values; and [2] the inability to quantify that values are time dependent. The Better than Dead (BTD) method is a health-state valuation method where states with a certain duration are compared with being dead. It has the potential to overcome these problems. Objectives To test the feasibility of the BTD method to estimate values for the EQ-5D system. Methods A representative sample of 291 Dutch respondents (aged 18-45 years) was recruited. In a web-based questionnaire, preferences were elicited for a selection of 50 different health states with six durations between 1 and 40 years. Random-effects models were used to estimate the effects of socio-demographic and experimental variables, and to estimate values for the EQ-5D. Test-retest reliability was assessed in 41 respondents. Results Important determinants for BTD were a religious life stance [odds ratio 4.09 (2.00-8.36)] and the educational level. The fastest respondents more often preferred health-state scenarios to being dead and had lower test-retest reliability (0.45 versus 0.77 and 0.84 for fast, medium and slow response times, respectively). The results showed a small number of so-called maximal endurable time states. Conclusion Valuating health states using the BTD method is feasible and reliable. Further research should explore how the experimental setting modifies how values depend on time.
| Additional Metadata | |
|---|---|
| doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0168-4, hdl.handle.net/1765/59058 | |
| PharmacoEconomics | |
| Organisation | Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA) |
|
van Hoorn, R., Donders, A. R. T., Oppe, M., & Stalmeier, P. (2014). The Better than Dead Method: Feasibility and Interpretation of a Valuation Study. PharmacoEconomics. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0168-4 |
|