MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767104228 · doi:10.1177/0272989x17738754

How Should Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration Choice Sets Be Presented for the Valuation of Health States?

2017· article· en· W2767104228 on OpenAlexaff
Brendan Mulhern, Richard Norman, Koonal Shah, Nick Bansback, Louise Longworth, Rosalie Viney

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Decision Making · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilEuroQol Research FoundationUniversity of Technology Sydney
KeywordsValuation (finance)LogitDiscrete choiceMixed logitEconometricsDimension (graph theory)PopulationConsistency (knowledge bases)EQ-5DActuarial scienceMultiple choiceLogistic regressionStatisticsMedicineComputer scienceMathematicsEconomicsSignificant differenceArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Discrete Choice Experiments including duration (DCE TTO ) can be used to generate utility values for health states from measures such as EQ-5D-5L. However, methodological issues concerning the optimum way to present choice sets remain. The aim of the present study was to test a range of task presentation approaches designed to support the DCE TTO completion process. Methods. Four separate presentation approaches were developed to examine different task features including dimension level highlighting, and health state severity and duration level presentation. Choice sets included 2 EQ-5D-5L states paired with 1 of 4 duration levels, and a third “immediate death” option. The same design, including 120 choice sets (developed using optimal methods), was employed across all approaches. The online survey was administered to a sample of the Australian population who completed 20 choice sets across 2 approaches. Conditional logit regression was used to assess model consistency, and scale parameter testing investigated poolability. Results. Overall 1,565 respondents completed the survey. Three approaches, using different dimension level highlighting techniques, produced mainly monotonic coefficients that resulted in a larger disutility as the severity level increased (excepting usual activities levels 2/3). The fourth approach, using a level indicator to present the severity levels, has slightly more non-monotonicity and produced larger ordered differences for the more severe dimension levels. Scale parameter testing suggested that the data cannot be pooled. Conclusions. The results provide information regarding how to present DCE tasks for health state valuation. The findings improve our understanding of the impact of different presentation approaches on valuation, and how DCE questions could be presented to be amenable to completion. However, it is unclear if the task presentation impacts online respondent engagement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.170
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.439
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1700.439
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.587
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.044 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Decision MakingSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207