Estimating population cardinal health state valuation models from individual ordinal (rank) health state preference data

McCabe, C and Brazier, J and Gilks, P and Tsuchiya, A and Roberts, J and O'Hagan, A and Stevens, K (2004): Estimating population cardinal health state valuation models from individual ordinal (rank) health state preference data. Published in: Journal of Health Economics , Vol. 3, No. 25 (2006): pp. 418-431.

Abstract

Ranking exercises have routinely been used as warm-up exercises within health state valuation surveys. Very little use has been made of the information obtained in this process. Instead, research has focussed upon the analysis of health state valuation data obtained using the visual analogue scale, standard gamble and time trade off methods.

Thurstone’s law of comparative judgement postulates a stable relationship between ordinal and cardinal preferences, based upon the information provided by pairwise choices. McFadden proposed that this relationship could be modelled by estimating conditional logistic regression models where alternatives had been ranked. In this paper we report the estimation of such models for the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and the SF-6D. The results are compared to the conventional regression models estimated from standard gamble data, and to the observed mean standard gamble health state valuations.

For both the HUI2 and the SF-6D, the models estimated using rank data are broadly comparable to the models estimated on standard gamble data and the predictive performance of these models is close to that of the standard gamble models. Our research indicates that rank data has the potential to provide useful insights into community health state preferences. However, important questions remain.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: health state valuation; HUI-2; SF-6D
• Subjects: I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty > I31 - General Welfare, Well-Being; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I1 - Health > I19 - Other

References

Torrance GW (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. Journal of Health Economics 5:1-30.

Brazier JE, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A (1999). A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment 3(9).

Bleichrodt H, Johanneson M (1997). An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Medical Decision Making 17:208-16.

Dolan P, Sutton M (1997). Mapping visual analogue scale scores on to time trade off and standard gamble utilities. Social Science and Medicine 44(10):1519-30.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2003). Guide to the methods for Technology Appraisal. NICE Draft for consultation. England, London.

Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W (2001). Visual analogue scales: Do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Medical Decision Making 21:329-34.

Kind P (1999). Turning lead into gold – the alchemist returns. Paper presented to HESG Birmingham.

Kind P (1996). Deriving cardinal scales from ordinal preference data: the analysis of time trade-off data using pairwise judgement models. Paper presented to HESG Brunel University.

Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, Barr R, Horsman J (1990). Guide to design and development of health state utility instrumentation. CHEPA Working Paper, 90-9. McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

McFadden D (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In Zarembka P (ed), Frontiers in Econometrics. New York Academic Press, USA, pp. 105-42.

Salomon JA (2004). The use of ordinal ranks in health state valuations. IHEA Conference. USA, San Francisco.

Dolan P (1997). Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care 35(11):1095-108.

Brazier JE, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002). The estimation of a preference based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics 21(2):271-92.

McCabe C, Stevens K, Roberts J, Brazier JE (2003). Health state values for the HUI2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey. Sheffield Health Economics Group Discussion paper 03/3. University of Sheffield. England, Sheffield.

Ljung G, Box G (1979). On a measure of lack of fit in time series models. Biometrika 66:265-70.

Weesie J. Tests of independence of irrelevant alternatives after clogit. http://www.fss.uu.nl/soc/iscore/stata (accessed 14th April 2004)

Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q (1996). A multi-attribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system: Health Utilities Mark 2. Medical Care 34(7):702-22.

Sturgis P, Thomas R (1998). Deriving a preference based utility score for the SF-6D: technical report. Survey Methods Centre at SCPR.

Dyer JS, Sarin RK (1982). Relative risk aversion. Management Science 28(8):857-86.

Broome J (1994). QALYs. Journal of Public Economics 50(2):149-67.

Hausman JA, Ruud PA (1987). Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data. Journal of Econometrics 34:83-104.

Koop G, Poirier DJ (1994). Rank-ordered logit models: an empirical analysis of Ontario voter preferences. Journal of Applied Econometrics 9:369-88.

Saigal S, Feeny D, Rosenbaum P, Furlong W, Burrows E, Stoskopf B (1996). Self-perceived health status and health related quality of life of extremely low birth weight infants at adolescence. JAMA 276(6):453-9.