Optimal DCE design for modelling nonlinear time preferences in EQ-5D-5L valuation studies: exploration of data from Denmark and Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Discrete choice experiment (DCE) methods are an increasingly popular valuation method, particularly for the EQ-5D-5L. While EQ-5D-5L value sets developed using DCE have traditionally assumed linear time preferences, this assumption has been challenged. This has led to the development of DCE modelling methods that allow for nonlinear time preferences. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of a model that accounts for nonlinear time preferences with DCE choice set formats and design construction methods for EQ-5D-5L value sets. METHODS: This study used a four-arm (2 × 2) between-subjects design to investigate the impact of two commonly used DCE choice set formats (i.e. a third option of either immediate death or full health) and two commonly used DCE design construction methods (i.e. generator-developed and efficient designs) on EQ-5D-5L value sets. Mixed logit models that used exponential discounting to account for nonlinear time preferences were estimated in OpenBUGS. This was tested in a sample of respondents from Peru (n = 942) and Denmark (n = 988). RESULTS: Across all arms and for both countries, discounting was found to be present when modelling explicitly for nonlinear time preferences. Although estimated discount rates varied widely from 1 to 117%, both type of choice set format and type of design construction method influenced the utilities for more severe health states. Choice sets with full health tended to produce a wider range of utility weights, while choice sets with immediate death tended to produce higher estimated discount rates. Generator-developed designs tended to produce the highest and lowest utility weights for health states compared to the efficient designs. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comparison of DCE choice set format and design construction method when nonlinear time preferences were explicitly modelled. Limitations to this study are discussed including data quality issues with the Peruvian dataset and small sample sizes. Further investigation is needed to confirm the suitability of models that account for nonlinear time preferences in EQ-5D-5L valuation studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.085 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".