What if 0 is not equal to 0? Inter-personal health utilities anchoring using the largest health gains

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.