Haode Wang, Donna L Rowen, Yuen Chen, Clara Mukuria, Deborah Street, Richard Norman
{"title":"用离散选择实验评价健康和幸福：探讨可行性、设计效果和国际偏好相似性。","authors":"Haode Wang, Donna L Rowen, Yuen Chen, Clara Mukuria, Deborah Street, Richard Norman","doi":"10.1007/s10198-025-01821-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health preference elicitation studies. However, few studies have explored applying a DCE to value long health and wellbeing measures. This study evaluates feasibility, examines the impact of attribute ordering and explores if similar preference exists between countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A health and wellbeing classification system was derived from the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) measure based on dimensionality, item performance, stakeholder preference and cultural feasibility. Representative samples of UK and Australian general population completed 13 DCE<sub>TTO</sub> tasks. Feasibility was assessed using data quality, time spent on the survey and each task, logical consistency and respondent understanding. Data were modelled using conditional logit model, to evaluate feasibility and impact of attribute ordering (health or other attributes ordered first). The UK and Australian value sets were compared on key characteristics, such as the relative importance of attributes, value set length and distribution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2489 UK and Australian general public respondents completed the online DCE<sub>TTO</sub> survey. Participants reported good understanding of the DCE<sub>TTO</sub> questions and the attributes. Most of the more severe dimension levels had increasing disutility, with a higher proportion of insignificance observed with the wellbeing attributes. Physical health attributes had larger disutility than other attributes, with anchored utility values ranging from - 0.791 to - 0.588 to 1 for UK and Australian population. The preference between the two countries differed, with mixed evidence for ordering effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DCE<sub>TTO</sub> is a viable method for health and wellbeing preference valuation. However, health and wellbeing preference can be influenced by attribute ordering and national setting. The results have implications for the development of future health and wellbeing valuation studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51416,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Valuing health and wellbeing using discrete choice experiment: exploring feasibility, design effect and international preference similarity.\",\"authors\":\"Haode Wang, Donna L Rowen, Yuen Chen, Clara Mukuria, Deborah Street, Richard Norman\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10198-025-01821-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health preference elicitation studies. However, few studies have explored applying a DCE to value long health and wellbeing measures. This study evaluates feasibility, examines the impact of attribute ordering and explores if similar preference exists between countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A health and wellbeing classification system was derived from the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) measure based on dimensionality, item performance, stakeholder preference and cultural feasibility. Representative samples of UK and Australian general population completed 13 DCE<sub>TTO</sub> tasks. Feasibility was assessed using data quality, time spent on the survey and each task, logical consistency and respondent understanding. Data were modelled using conditional logit model, to evaluate feasibility and impact of attribute ordering (health or other attributes ordered first). The UK and Australian value sets were compared on key characteristics, such as the relative importance of attributes, value set length and distribution.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>2489 UK and Australian general public respondents completed the online DCE<sub>TTO</sub> survey. Participants reported good understanding of the DCE<sub>TTO</sub> questions and the attributes. Most of the more severe dimension levels had increasing disutility, with a higher proportion of insignificance observed with the wellbeing attributes. Physical health attributes had larger disutility than other attributes, with anchored utility values ranging from - 0.791 to - 0.588 to 1 for UK and Australian population. The preference between the two countries differed, with mixed evidence for ordering effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DCE<sub>TTO</sub> is a viable method for health and wellbeing preference valuation. However, health and wellbeing preference can be influenced by attribute ordering and national setting. The results have implications for the development of future health and wellbeing valuation studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Health Economics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Health Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-025-01821-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-025-01821-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Valuing health and wellbeing using discrete choice experiment: exploring feasibility, design effect and international preference similarity.
Background: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health preference elicitation studies. However, few studies have explored applying a DCE to value long health and wellbeing measures. This study evaluates feasibility, examines the impact of attribute ordering and explores if similar preference exists between countries.
Methods: A health and wellbeing classification system was derived from the EQ Health and Wellbeing (EQ-HWB) measure based on dimensionality, item performance, stakeholder preference and cultural feasibility. Representative samples of UK and Australian general population completed 13 DCETTO tasks. Feasibility was assessed using data quality, time spent on the survey and each task, logical consistency and respondent understanding. Data were modelled using conditional logit model, to evaluate feasibility and impact of attribute ordering (health or other attributes ordered first). The UK and Australian value sets were compared on key characteristics, such as the relative importance of attributes, value set length and distribution.
Results: 2489 UK and Australian general public respondents completed the online DCETTO survey. Participants reported good understanding of the DCETTO questions and the attributes. Most of the more severe dimension levels had increasing disutility, with a higher proportion of insignificance observed with the wellbeing attributes. Physical health attributes had larger disutility than other attributes, with anchored utility values ranging from - 0.791 to - 0.588 to 1 for UK and Australian population. The preference between the two countries differed, with mixed evidence for ordering effects.
Conclusions: DCETTO is a viable method for health and wellbeing preference valuation. However, health and wellbeing preference can be influenced by attribute ordering and national setting. The results have implications for the development of future health and wellbeing valuation studies.
期刊介绍：
The European Journal of Health Economics is a journal of Health Economics and associated disciplines. The growing demand for health economics and the introduction of new guidelines in various European countries were the motivation to generate a highly scientific and at the same time practice oriented journal considering the requirements of various health care systems in Europe. The international scientific board of opinion leaders guarantees high-quality, peer-reviewed publications as well as articles for pragmatic approaches in the field of health economics. We intend to cover all aspects of health economics:
• Basics of health economic approaches and methods
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Health Care Systems
• Pricing and Reimbursement Systems
• Quality-of-Life-Studies The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. The author will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements.
Officially cited as: Eur J Health Econ
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
