Valuing health states : is the MACBETH approach useful for valuing EQ-5D-3L health states?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Oliveira, Mónica Duarte
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Agostinho, Andreia, Ferreira, Lara, Nicola, Paulo, Bana e Costa, Carlos
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10451/36292
Resumo: © The Author(s). 2018. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
id RCAP_7619174f8f9c977dfc784025ee349f70
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.ul.pt:10451/36292
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Valuing health states : is the MACBETH approach useful for valuing EQ-5D-3L health states?QALYPreference-based instrumentsHealth states valuationMACBETHTTO© The Author(s). 2018. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background: Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) are a key outcome measure widely used within health technology assessment and health service research studies. QALYs combine quantity and quality of life, with quality of life calculations relying on the value of distinct health states. Such health states’ values capture the preferences of a population and have been typically built through numerical elicitation methods. Evidence points to these value scores being influenced by methods in use and individuals reporting cognitive difficulties in eliciting their preferences. Evidence from other areas has further suggested that individuals may prefer using distinct elicitation techniques and that this preference can be influenced by their numeracy. In this study we explore the use of the MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique) non-numerical preference elicitation approach for health states’ evaluation. Methods: A new protocol for preference elicitation based on MACBETH (only requiring qualitative judgments) was developed and tested within a web survey format. A sample of the Portuguese general population (n=243) valued 25 EQ-5D-3L health states with the MACBETH protocol and with a variant of the time trade-off (TTO) protocol, for comparison purposes and for understanding respondents’ preference for distinct protocols and differences in inconsistent evaluations. Respondents answered to a short numeracy test, and basic socio-economic information collected. Results: Results show that the mean values derived from MACBETH and the TTO variant are strongly correlated; however, there are substantial differences for several health states’ values. Large and similar numbers of logical inconsistencies were found in respondents’ answers with both methods. Participants with higher levels of numeracy according to the test preferred expressing value judgments with MACBETH, while participants with lower levels were mostly indifferent to both methods. Higher correlations between MACBETH and TTO variant evaluations were observed for individuals with higher numeracy. Conclusion: Results suggest that it is worth researching the use of non-numerical preference elicitation methods. Numeracy tests more appropriate for preference elicitation when no explicit considerations of uncertainty are made need to be explored and used. Further behavioural research is needed to fully understand the potential for using these methods in distinct settings (e.g. in different evaluation contexts and in face-to-face and non-face-to-face environments), as well as to explore the effect of literacy on assessments and on respondents’ preferences.The authors are thankful for support from the Centre for Management Studies of Instituto Superior Técnico (CEG-IST) [FCT- Foundation for Science and Technology grant number UID/GES/00097/2013] and from the Centre for Health Studies & Research-University of Coimbra (CEISUC) [FCT grant number UID/MULTI/4066/2016].BMCRepositório da Universidade de LisboaOliveira, Mónica DuarteAgostinho, AndreiaFerreira, LaraNicola, PauloBana e Costa, Carlos2019-01-09T11:31:10Z20182018-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10451/36292engHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes (2018) 16:2351477-752510.1186/s12955-018-1056-yinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-08T16:32:50Zoai:repositorio.ul.pt:10451/36292Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T21:50:34.849657Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Valuing health states : is the MACBETH approach useful for valuing EQ-5D-3L health states?
title Valuing health states : is the MACBETH approach useful for valuing EQ-5D-3L health states?
spellingShingle Valuing health states : is the MACBETH approach useful for valuing EQ-5D-3L health states?
Oliveira, Mónica Duarte
QALY
Preference-based instruments
Health states valuation
MACBETH
TTO
title_short Valuing health states : is the MACBETH approach useful for valuing EQ-5D-3L health states?
title_full Valuing health states : is the MACBETH approach useful for valuing EQ-5D-3L health states?
title_fullStr Valuing health states : is the MACBETH approach useful for valuing EQ-5D-3L health states?
title_full_unstemmed Valuing health states : is the MACBETH approach useful for valuing EQ-5D-3L health states?
title_sort Valuing health states : is the MACBETH approach useful for valuing EQ-5D-3L health states?
author Oliveira, Mónica Duarte
author_facet Oliveira, Mónica Duarte
Agostinho, Andreia
Ferreira, Lara
Nicola, Paulo
Bana e Costa, Carlos
author_role author
author2 Agostinho, Andreia
Ferreira, Lara
Nicola, Paulo
Bana e Costa, Carlos
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Oliveira, Mónica Duarte
Agostinho, Andreia
Ferreira, Lara
Nicola, Paulo
Bana e Costa, Carlos
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv QALY
Preference-based instruments
Health states valuation
MACBETH
TTO
topic QALY
Preference-based instruments
Health states valuation
MACBETH
TTO
description © The Author(s). 2018. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018
2018-01-01T00:00:00Z
2019-01-09T11:31:10Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10451/36292
url http://hdl.handle.net/10451/36292
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (2018) 16:235
1477-7525
10.1186/s12955-018-1056-y
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMC
publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMC
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799134440816902144

Registros relacionados