Are Web-Based Valuation Surveys for Preference-Based Measures as Reliable as Face-to-Face Surveys? TTO, DCE and DCE with Duration

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
{"title":"Are Web-Based Valuation Surveys for Preference-Based Measures as Reliable as Face-to-Face Surveys? TTO, DCE and DCE with Duration","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s40258-023-00865-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <span> <h3>Background</h3> <p>Valuation surveys of preference-based measures are typically conducted face-to-face or on web panels. In this survey, we considered whether face-to-face and online surveys were reliable using three tasks: composite time trade-off (cTTO), discrete choice experiment (DCE), and DCE with duration.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Methods</h3> <p>Respondents (aged 20–69 years) for both face-to-face (<em>N</em> = 1000, target sample size) and web surveys were selected through quota sampling by sex and age from each panel of the general population in Japan. They were then allocated to one of the three tasks and divided into six groups (two survey modes × three tasks, <em>N</em> = 334 per group). For the cTTO, respondents were asked to rate ten health states described by the EQ-5D-5L. For the DCE and DCE with duration surveys, respondents were asked about 15 health–state pairs. For all participants, as in the second-stage survey, a similar process was repeated two weeks after the first survey. Reliability was evaluated by calculating the percentage of agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Results</h3> <p>The cTTO scores of the face-to-face and web surveys were systematically different. Between the face-to-face and web surveys, the agreement of the TTO survey was not good. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.37 for the face-to-face test-test and 0.59 for the web test-retest. Discrete choice experiment (DCE) and DCE with duration had similarly good agreement (more than 70%), regardless of face-to-face or web surveys. However, between the first and second surveys (test-retest) of DCE and DCE with duration, the agreement depends on whether the positions of the two cards (health states) are identical.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Conclusion</h3> <p>If the face-to-face cTTO score is the gold standard, a web-based survey of cTTO is not recommended regardless of the ICC. If a DCE survey is performed, positioning effects should be considered.</p> </span>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-023-00865-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Valuation surveys of preference-based measures are typically conducted face-to-face or on web panels. In this survey, we considered whether face-to-face and online surveys were reliable using three tasks: composite time trade-off (cTTO), discrete choice experiment (DCE), and DCE with duration.

Methods

Respondents (aged 20–69 years) for both face-to-face (N = 1000, target sample size) and web surveys were selected through quota sampling by sex and age from each panel of the general population in Japan. They were then allocated to one of the three tasks and divided into six groups (two survey modes × three tasks, N = 334 per group). For the cTTO, respondents were asked to rate ten health states described by the EQ-5D-5L. For the DCE and DCE with duration surveys, respondents were asked about 15 health–state pairs. For all participants, as in the second-stage survey, a similar process was repeated two weeks after the first survey. Reliability was evaluated by calculating the percentage of agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients.

Results

The cTTO scores of the face-to-face and web surveys were systematically different. Between the face-to-face and web surveys, the agreement of the TTO survey was not good. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.37 for the face-to-face test-test and 0.59 for the web test-retest. Discrete choice experiment (DCE) and DCE with duration had similarly good agreement (more than 70%), regardless of face-to-face or web surveys. However, between the first and second surveys (test-retest) of DCE and DCE with duration, the agreement depends on whether the positions of the two cards (health states) are identical.

Conclusion

If the face-to-face cTTO score is the gold standard, a web-based survey of cTTO is not recommended regardless of the ICC. If a DCE survey is performed, positioning effects should be considered.

基于网络的偏好型测量评估调查与面对面调查一样可靠吗?TTO、DCE和DCE与持续时间
摘要 背景 基于偏好的评估调查通常是通过面对面或网络面板进行的。在这项调查中,我们使用了三种任务来考量面对面调查和在线调查是否可靠:综合时间权衡(cTTO)、离散选择实验(DCE)和带持续时间的离散选择实验。 方法 面对面调查(N = 1000,目标样本量)和网络调查的受访者(年龄在 20-69 岁之间)都是从日本普通人群的每个小组中按性别和年龄配额抽取的。然后将他们分配到三项任务中的一项,并分成六组(两种调查模式×三项任务,每组 N = 334)。在 cTTO 中,受访者被要求对 EQ-5D-5L 所描述的十种健康状况进行评分。在 DCE 和 DCE(含持续时间)调查中,受访者被问及 15 对健康状态。对于所有参与者,与第二阶段调查一样,在第一次调查两周后重复类似的过程。通过计算一致性百分比和类内相关系数来评估可靠性。 结果 面对面调查和网络调查的 cTTO 分数存在系统性差异。在面对面调查和网络调查之间,TTO 调查的一致性并不好。面对面测试-重测的类内相关系数(ICC)为 0.37,网络测试-重测的类内相关系数(ICC)为 0.59。无论面对面调查还是网络调查,离散选择实验(DCE)和持续时间离散选择实验(DCE)的一致性同样很好(超过 70%)。然而,在离散选择实验和持续时间离散选择实验的第一次和第二次调查(测试-重测)之间,一致性取决于两张卡片(健康状态)的位置是否相同。 结论 如果面对面的 cTTO 评分是金标准,那么无论 ICC 如何,都不建议对 cTTO 进行网络调查。如果进行 DCE 调查,则应考虑定位效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信