Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNorman, Richard
dc.contributor.authorViney, R.
dc.contributor.authorAaronson, N.
dc.contributor.authorBrazier, J.
dc.contributor.authorCella, D.
dc.contributor.authorCosta, D.
dc.contributor.authorFayers, P.
dc.contributor.authorKemmler, G.
dc.contributor.authorPeacock, S.
dc.contributor.authorPickard, A.
dc.contributor.authorRowen, D.
dc.contributor.authorStreet, D.
dc.contributor.authorVelikova, G.
dc.contributor.authorYoung, T.
dc.contributor.authorKing, M.
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T14:54:20Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T14:54:20Z
dc.date.created2015-12-10T04:25:52Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationNorman, R. and Viney, R. and Aaronson, N. and Brazier, J. and Cella, D. and Costa, D. and Fayers, P. et al. 2015. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format. Quality of Life Research. 25 (3): pp. 637-649.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/41664
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11136-015-1115-3
dc.description.abstract

Purpose: To assess the feasibility of using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to value health states within the QLU-C10D, a utility instrument derived from the QLQ-C30, and to assess clarity, difficulty, and respondent preference between two presentation formats. Methods: We ran a DCE valuation task in an online panel (N = 430). Respondents answered 16 choice pairs; in half of these, differences between dimensions were highlighted, and in the remainder, common dimensions were described in text and differing attributes were tabulated. To simplify the cognitive task, only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed per choice set. We assessed difficulty and clarity of the valuation task with Likert-type scales, and respondents were asked which format they preferred. We analysed the DCE data by format with a conditional logit model and used Chi-squared tests to compare other responses by format. Semi-structured telephone interviews (N = 8) explored respondents’ cognitive approaches to the valuation task. Results: Four hundred and forty-nine individuals were recruited, 430 completed at least one choice set, and 422/449 (94 %) completed all 16 choice sets. Interviews revealed that respondents found ten domains difficult but manageable, many adopting simplifying heuristics. Results for clarity and difficulty were identical between formats, but the “highlight” format was preferred by 68 % of respondents. Conditional logit parameter estimates were monotonic within domains, suggesting respondents were able to complete the DCE sensibly, yielding valid results. Conclusion: A DCE valuation task in which only four of the QLU-C10D’s ten dimensions differed in any choice set is feasible for deriving utility weights for the QLU-C10D.

dc.publisherSpringer International Publishing Switzerland
dc.titleUsing a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.volumexx
dcterms.source.numberxx
dcterms.source.startPagexx
dcterms.source.endPagexx
dcterms.source.issn0962-9343
dcterms.source.titleQuality of Life Research
curtin.departmentDepartment of Health Policy and Management
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record