Does the process of deliberation change individuals' health state valuations? An exploratory study using the person trade-off technique

Impact of information and deliberation on the consistency of preferences for prioritization in health care - evidence from discrete choice experiments undertaken alongside citizens' juries

BACKGROUND

Public preferences are an important consideration for priority-setting. Critics suggest preferences of the public who are potentially naïve to the issue under consideration may lead to sub-optimal decisions. We assessed the impact of information and deliberation via a Citizens' Jury (CJ) or preference elicitation methods (Discrete Choice Experiment, DCE) on preferences for prioritizing access to bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Preferences for seven prioritization criteria (e.g. obesity level, obesity-related comorbidities) were elicited from three groups who completed a DCE: (i) participants from two CJs (n = 28); (ii) controls who did not participate in the jury (n = 21); (iii) population sample (n = 1,994). Participants in the jury and control groups completed the DCE pre- and post-jury. DCE data were analyzed using multinomial logit models to derive "priority weights" for criteria for access to surgery. The rank order of criteria was compared across groups, time points and CJ recommendations.

RESULTS

The extent to which the criteria were considered important were broadly consistent across groups and were similar to jury recommendations but with variation in the rank order. Preferences of jurors but not controls were more differentiated (that is, criteria were assigned a greater range of priority weights) after than before the jury. Juror preferences pre-jury were similar to that of the public but appeared to change during the course of the jury with greater priority given to a person with comorbidity. Conversely, controls appeared to give a lower priority to those with comorbidity and higher priority to treating very severe obesity after than before the jury.

CONCLUSION

Being informed and undertaking deliberation had little impact on the criteria that were considered to be relevant for prioritizing access to bariatric surgery but may have a small impact on the relative importance of criteria. CJs may clarify underlying rationale but may not provide substantially different prioritization recommendations compared to a DCE.

A Social Networks Approach to Understanding Vaccine Conversations on Twitter: Network Clusters, Sentiment, and Certainty in HPV Social Networks

Individuals increasingly rely on the Internet, and social media in particular, for health-related information. A recent survey reports that 80% of Internet users search for health information online. In the present study, we employ Twitter data to understand content characteristics and the patterns of content flow of the conversations about the HPV vaccine debate. Approaching the HPV vaccine conversations on Twitter as a social network, we can identify key self-formed subgroups-clusters of users who create "siloes" of interactions and information flow. Combining network analysis, computer-aided content analysis, and human-coded content analysis, we explored the communication dynamics within the groups in terms of group members' affective and cognitive characteristics. Our findings show that positive emotion is positively correlated with cluster density, an indicator of strong ties and rapid information flow. In the case of negative emotion, we found that anger is a significant negative predictor for graph density. We also found a correlation between certainty and tentativeness; both at cluster as well as at tweet level, suggesting that clusters bring together people who are sure about the HPV vaccine and people who are exploring for answers.

A comparison of individual and collective decision making for standard gamble and time trade-off

Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) are typically derived from individual preferences over health episodes. This paper reports the first experimental investigation into the effects of collective decision making on health valuations, using both time trade-off (TTO) and standard gamble (SG) tasks. We investigated collective decision making in dyads, by means of a mixed-subjects design where we control for learning effects. Our data suggest that collective decision making has little effect on decision quality, as no effects were observed on decision consistency and monotonicity for both methods. Furthermore, QALY weights remained similar between individual and collective decisions, and the typical difference in elicited weights between TTO and SG was not affected. These findings suggest that consulting with others has little effect on health state valuation, although learning may have. Additionally, our findings add to the literature of the effect of collective decision making, suggesting that no such effect occurs for TTO and SG.

Reasoning in the valuation of health-related quality of life: A qualitative content analysis of deliberations in a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Group deliberation can be a pathway to understanding reasons behind judgement decisions. This pilot study implemented a deliberative process to elicit public values about health-related quality of life. In this study, participants deliberated scales and weights for a German adaption of the Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D) Version 2 from a public perspective.

OBJECTIVE

This article examines the reasons participants stated for health state valuations and investigates the feasibility of eliciting public reasons for judgement decisions in a deliberative setting.

METHODS

The 1-day deliberation was guided by MACBETH as a method of multi-criteria decision analysis and involved qualitative comparisons of SF-6D health states and dimensions. Participants deliberated in parallel small groups and a subsequent plenary assembly. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to assess the value judgements and reasons behind them.

RESULTS

A total of 34 students participated in the study. Common reasoning was the level of impairment, marginal benefit, possibility of adjustment and expectation satisfaction. While the small groups agreed on scales for the SF-6D dimensions, the plenary assembly did not reach consensus on one scale and dimension weights. When dimensions were prioritized, these were pain and mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

While no consented value set was derived, this pilot study presents a promising approach for eliciting public reasoning behind judgements on health state values. Furthermore, it demonstrates that participants consider diverse motives when valuing health-related quality of life.

Effect of Reflection and Deliberation on Health State Values: A Mixed-Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Health economists ask members of the general public to value health states, but it is recognized that individuals construct their preferences during the valuation tasks. Conventional methods rely on one-off interviews that do not give participants time to reflect and deliberate on their preferences.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates the effect of reflection and deliberation on health state preferences using the EQ-5D questionnaire and time trade-off valuation method.

METHODS

A novel concurrent explanatory mixed-methods design is used to investigate the explanation for the quantitative findings.

RESULTS

A total of 57 participants in the United Kingdom valued health states before and after a group-based deliberation exercise. There were large changes in health state values at the individual level, but the changes canceled out at the aggregate level. The mixed-methods findings suggest deliberation did not reveal new information or reduce inconsistencies in reasoning but rather focused on an exchange of personal subjective beliefs. In cases of disagreement, the participants accepted but did not adopt other participants' opinions. Participants remained uncertain about the relevance of their experiences and about their values.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that reflection and deliberation, as designed in this study, are unlikely to result in large systematic changes of health state values. The uncertainties expressed by participants means future research should investigate whether preferences are informed or whether providing participants with more information helps them construct their preferences with more certainty. The mixed-methods design used is a promising design to help elucidate the reasons for quantitative findings.

Using co-creation and multi-criteria decision analysis to close service gaps for underserved populations

BACKGROUND

Navigating treatment pathways remains a challenge for populations with complex needs due to bottlenecks, service gaps and access barriers. The application of novel methods may be required to identify and remedy such problems.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate a novel approach to identifying persistent service gaps, generating potential solutions and prioritizing action.

DESIGN

Co-creation and multi-criteria decision analysis in the context of a larger, mixed methods study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Community-dwelling sample of older women living alone (OWLA), residing in Melbourne, Australia (n = 13-37). Convenience sample of (n = 11) representatives from providers and patient organizations.

INTERVENTIONS

Novel interventions co-created to support health, well-being and independence for OWLA and bridge missing links in pathways to care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Performance criteria, criterion weights , performance ratings, summary scores and ranks reflecting the relative value of interventions to OWLA.

RESULTS

The co-creation process generated a list of ten interventions. Both OWLA and stakeholders considered a broad range of criteria when evaluating the relative merits of these ten interventions and a "Do Nothing" alternative. Combining criterion weights with performance ratings yielded a consistent set of high priority interventions, with "Handy Help," "Volunteer Drivers" and "Exercise Buddies" most highly ranked by both OWLA and stakeholder samples.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The present study described and demonstrated the use of multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize a set of novel interventions generated via a co-creation process. Application of this approach can add community voice to the policy debate and begin to bridge the gap in service provision for underserved populations.

MCDA-based deliberation to value health states: lessons learned from a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Health economists have shown a growing interest in deliberation and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) as possible pathways to transparently integrate value judgments in cost-utility analyses. In line with these developments, this study piloted a consensus process to derive a German value set for the Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D). In a conference setting, a group was tasked to deliberate on scores and weights for the SF-6D from the perspective of a self-determined and independent life.

METHODS

The one-day consensus conference was based on a deliberative process in combination with the MCDA method MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique). According to MACBETH, participants were asked to qualitatively rate pairwise comparisons of SF-6D health states. The scoring within each dimension was conducted in parallel group sessions. Final agreement on the scores as well as weights for the SF-6D dimensions were derived in a subsequent plenary assembly. Results were analyzed using the software M-MACBETH and qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 34 participants were recruited. While each of the 6 small groups presented a consented score, the plenary assembly reached consensus on all dimensions apart from pain. Concerning dimension weights, some participants favored prioritizing pain and mental health. Others disputed that trade-offs between dimensions and thus assigning weights were not acceptable in a context where this may involve withholding care from someone. As a consequence, no consensus on a value set was reached. Participants identified the group size of the plenary session and the applied weighting procedure as main obstacles to the process.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study presents a consensus-based approach for valuing health-related quality of life. However, further research is needed on deliberative processes that yield quantifiable results. Future conferences should explore smaller group sizes, longer durations of the deliberative process and alternatives to the additive value function applied in MACBETH.

A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions

BACKGROUND

Standard methods for eliciting the preference data upon which 'value sets' are based generally have in common an aim to 'uncover' people's preferences by asking them to evaluate a subset of health states, then using their responses to infer their preferences over all dimensions and levels. An alternative approach is to ask people directly about the relative importance to them of the dimensions, levels and interactions between them. This paper describes a new stated preference approach for directly eliciting personal utility functions (PUFs), and reports a pilot study to test its feasibility for valuing the EQ-5D.

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed, designed to directly elicit PUFs from general public respondents via computer-assisted personal interviews, with a focus on helping respondents to reflect and deliberate on their preferences. The questionnaire was piloted in England.

RESULTS

Seventy-six interviews were conducted in December 2015. Overall, pain/discomfort and mobility were found to be the most important of the EQ-5D dimensions. The ratings for intermediate improvements in each dimension show heterogeneity, both within and between respondents. Almost a quarter of respondents indicated that no EQ-5D health states are worse than dead.

DISCUSSION

The PUF approach appears to be feasible, and has the potential to yield meaningful, well-informed preference data from respondents that can be aggregated to yield a value set for the EQ-5D. A deliberative approach to health state valuation also has the potential to complement and develop existing valuation methods. Further refinement of some elements of the approach is required.

Future Directions in Valuing Benefits for Estimating QALYs: Is Time Up for the EQ-5D?

The widespread adoption of the EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) has been important for the comparability, transparency, and consistency of economic evaluations for informing resource allocation in healthcare. The objectives of this article were to (1) critically assess whether the widespread adoption of the EQ-5D and its time trade-off-based value sets to inform economic evaluation is likely to continue and (2) speculate about how benefits may be measured and valued to inform economic evaluation in the future. Evidence supports the use of the EQ-5D in many areas of health, but there are notable gaps. Furthermore, there has been interest among some policy makers in measuring changes in well-being, and in using common outcomes across sectors. Possibilities for measuring well-being alongside health can be achieved through bolt-on dimensions or an entirely new measure capturing both health and well-being. Nevertheless, there are significant concerns about the logic of estimating a common utility function. The development of online valuation methods has had a major impact on the field, which is likely to continue. We, however, recommend more allowance for respondents to consider their answers. There is an ongoing debate on the role of patient values or experience-based values. To date, this has seen limited take-up by decision makers and there are significant technical problems to obtaining representative and meaningful values. Policy makers and the general population must decide on the focus and scope of benefits that are incorporated into economic evaluation, and current evidence on this is mixed. In part, this will determine whether the widespread adoption will continue.

Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it

In the estimation of population value sets for health state classification systems such as the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D), there is increasing interest in asking respondents to value their own health state, sometimes referred to as "experience-based utility values" or, more correctly, own rather than hypothetical health states. Own health state values differ to hypothetical health state values, and this may be attributable to many reasons. This paper critically examines whose values matter; why there is a difference between own and hypothetical values; how to measure own health state values; and why to use own health state values. Finally, the paper examines other ways that own health state values can be taken into account, such as including the use of informed general population preferences that may better take into account experience-based values.

Assessing the Use of a Feedback Module to Model EQ-5D-5L Health States Values in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

An international valuation protocol exists for obtaining societal values for each of the 3125 health states of the five-level EuroQol-five dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. A feedback module (FM) that can be related to theoretical models used in behavioral economics was recently included in this protocol.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to assess the impact of using an FM to estimate an EQ-5D-5L value set in Hong Kong.

METHODS

EQ-5D-5L health states were elicited using a composite time trade-off (C-TTO) and a discrete-choice (DC) experiment. Use of the FM according to participant characteristics and the impact of the FM on the number of inconsistent C-TTO responses were assessed. We employed a main-effects hybrid model that combined data from both elicitation techniques.

RESULTS

In total, 1014 individuals completed the survey. The sample was representative of the general Chinese Hong Kong population in terms of sex, educational attainment, marital status, and most age groups but not for employment status. The use of the FM reduced the number of C-TTO inconsistencies. Participant characteristics differed significantly between those who used and did not use the FM. The model without a constant resulted in logical consistent coefficients and was therefore selected as the model to produce the value set. The predicted EQ-5D-5L values ranged from -0.864 to 1.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of an FM to allow participants to exclude C-TTO responses reduced the number of inconsistent responses and improved the quality of the data when estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set in Hong Kong.

How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation

Despite the importance of health state values in informing resource allocation in health care, there is arguably little known about how individuals value health. Previous studies have shown that a variety of non-health factors and beliefs are important in valuing health, but there is less evidence in the literature about how individuals' beliefs affect their preferences or what role non-health factors play in the process of forming preferences. This study investigated the thought processes of 21 U.K. based participants in March 2013 who valued health states using semi-structured interviews and a think-aloud protocol, with the aim to better understand the relationship between health states, the individual's underlying beliefs, and the individual's preferences. Participants followed several stages in valuing health. First, participants interpreted the health states more concretely, relying on their imagination and their experience of ill health. Participants judged how the concrete health problems combined with their personal interests, circumstances, and environment would affect them personally. Ultimately, participants valued health by estimating and weighing the non-health consequences of the health states. Six consequences were most frequently mentioned: activities, enjoyment, independence, relationships, dignity, and avoiding being a burden. At each stage participants encountered difficulties and expressed concerns. The findings have implications for methods of describing health, for example, whether the focus should be on health or a broader notion of well-being and capability. This is because the consequences are similar to the domains of broader measures such as the ICECAP measures for adults and older people, and the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. The findings suggest the need for testing whether individuals are informed about the health states they are valuing. Participants valued health by estimating the non-health consequences of health states and these estimates relied on individuals' beliefs about the interaction of the health state and their personal and social circumstances.

Methodological and applied concerns surrounding age-related weighting within health economic evaluation

Economic evaluations that measure the benefits of health interventions in terms of units of health gain inevitably require decision-makers to make judgments about the 'value for money' of those health gains. Decision-making bodies have also commonly returned to the position that a unit of health gain, such as an additional quality-adjusted life year, is of equal value regardless of the characteristics of the recipient. This paper focuses on whether and how health gains in economic evaluation should be differentially weighted by age of recipient. The paper presents a structured overview of evidence from the revealed preference and stated preference literature in this area. It discusses a number of methodological issues raised by differential weighting of health gains by age of recipient. These include identifying appropriate samples for the derivation of age-related weights, methodological issues surrounding the application of the quality-adjusted life year measure, the relative merits of alternative valuation techniques for weighting exercises, the impact of context and design effects on derived values and operational concerns surrounding the application of age-related weights within economic evaluation. The paper ends with pointers for potential future research in this area.