Correction to: Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology

Modifying the Composite Time Trade-Off Method to Improve Its Discriminatory Power

OBJECTIVES

In cost-effectiveness analysis of health technologies, health state utilities are needed. They are often elicited with a composite time trade-off (cTTO) method, particularly for the widely used EQ-5D-5L. Unfortunately, cTTO discriminatory power is hindered by (1) respondents' nontrading (NT) of time for quality, (2) censoring of utilities at -1, and (3) poor correlation of negative utilities with state severity. We investigated whether modifying cTTO can mitigate these effects.

METHODS

We interviewed online 478 students (February to April, 2021) who each valued the same 10 EQ-5D-5L health states in 1 of 3 arms. Arm A used a standard cTTO, expanded with 2 questions to explore reasons for NT and censoring. Arms B and C used a time trade-off with modified alternatives offered to overcome loss aversion, to unify the tasks for positive and negative utilities, and to enable eliciting utilities < -1.

RESULTS

In arms B and C, we observed less NT than in A (respectively, 4% and 4% vs 10%), more strictly negative utilities (38% and 40% vs 25%), and more utilities ≤ -1 (18% and 30% vs 10%). The average utility of state 55555 dropped to -2.15 and -2.52 from -0.53. Enabling finer trades in arm A reduced NT by 70%. Arms B and C yielded an intuitive association between negative utilities and state severity. These arms were considered more difficult and resulted in more inconsistencies.

CONCLUSIONS

The discriminatory power of cTTO can be improved, but it may require increasing the difficulty of the task. The standard cTTO may overestimate the utilities, especially of severe states.

In a Child's Shoes: Composite Time Trade-Off Valuations for EQ-5D-Y-3L with Different Proxy Perspectives

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

EQ-5D-Y-3L health states are commonly valued by asking adults to complete stated preference tasks, 'given their views about a 10-year-old child' (hereafter referred to as proxy 1). The use of this perspective has been a source of debate. In this paper, we investigated an alternative proxy perspective: i.e. adults considered what they think a 10-year old-child would decide for itself (hereafter, proxy 2 (substitute)]. Our main objective was to explore how the outcomes, dispersion and response patterns of a composite time trade-off valuation differ between proxy 1 and proxy 2.

METHODS

A team of four trained interviewers completed 402 composite time trade-off interviews following the EQ-5D-Y-3L protocol. Respondents were randomly allocated to value health states in either the proxy 1 or proxy 2 (substitute) perspective. Each respondent valued ten health states with the perspective they were assigned to, as well as one health state with the alternative perspective (33333).

RESULTS

The use of different proxy perspectives yielded differences in EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation. For states in which children had considerable pain and were very worried, sad or unhappy, respondents' valuations were lower in proxy 1 than in proxy 2 (substitute) perspectives, by about 0.2. Within-subject variation across health states was lower for proxy 2 (substitute) than proxy 1 perspectives. Analyses of response patterns suggest that data for proxy 2 (substitute) perspectives were less clustered.

CONCLUSIONS

There are systematic differences between composite time trade-off responses given by adults deciding for children and adults considering what children would want for themselves. In addition to warranting further qualitative exploration, such differences contribute to the ongoing normative discussion surrounding the source and perspective used for valuation of child and adolescent health.