Deciding Between SF-6Dv2 Health States: A Think-Aloud Study of Decision-Making Strategies Used in Discrete Choice Experiments
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Deciding Between SF-6Dv2 Health States : A Think-Aloud Study of Decision-Making Strategies Used in Discrete Choice Experiments. / Broderick, Lynne; Bjørner, Jakob B.; Lauher-Charest, Miranda; White, Michelle K.; Kosinski, Mark; Mulhern, Brendan; Brazier, John.
In: Value in Health, Vol. 25, No. 12, 2022, p. 2034-2043.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Deciding Between SF-6Dv2 Health States
T2 - A Think-Aloud Study of Decision-Making Strategies Used in Discrete Choice Experiments
AU - Broderick, Lynne
AU - Bjørner, Jakob B.
AU - Lauher-Charest, Miranda
AU - White, Michelle K.
AU - Kosinski, Mark
AU - Mulhern, Brendan
AU - Brazier, John
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Objective: This study aimed to gain insight into decision-making strategies individuals used when evaluating pairs of SF-6Dv2 health states in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). Methods: This qualitative, cross-sectional, noninterventional study asked participants to use a think-aloud approach to compare SF-6Dv2 health states in DCEs. Thematic analysis focused on comprehension and cognitive strategies used to compare health states and make decisions. Results: Participants (N = 40) used 3 main strategies when completing DCEs: (1) trading, (2) reinterpretation, and (3) relying on previous experience. Trading was the most common strategy, used by everyone at least once, and involved prioritizing key attributes, such as preferring a health state with significant depression but no bodily pain. Reinterpretation was used by 17 participants and involved reconstructing health states by changing underlying assumptions (eg, rationalizing selecting a health state with significant pain because they could take pain medications). Finally, some (n = 13) relied on previous experience when making decisions on some choice tasks. Participants with experience dealing with pain, for instance, prioritized health states with the least impact in this dimension. Conclusions: Qualitatively evaluating the decision-making strategies used in DCEs allows researchers to evaluate whether the tasks and attributes are interpreted accurately. The findings from this study add to the understanding of the generation of SF-6Dv2 health utility weights and the validity of these weights (e.g., reinterpreting health states could undermine the validity of DCEs and utility weights), and the overall usefulness of the SF-6Dv2. The methodology described in this study can and should be carried forth in valuing other health utility measures, not just the SF-6Dv2.
AB - Objective: This study aimed to gain insight into decision-making strategies individuals used when evaluating pairs of SF-6Dv2 health states in discrete choice experiments (DCEs). Methods: This qualitative, cross-sectional, noninterventional study asked participants to use a think-aloud approach to compare SF-6Dv2 health states in DCEs. Thematic analysis focused on comprehension and cognitive strategies used to compare health states and make decisions. Results: Participants (N = 40) used 3 main strategies when completing DCEs: (1) trading, (2) reinterpretation, and (3) relying on previous experience. Trading was the most common strategy, used by everyone at least once, and involved prioritizing key attributes, such as preferring a health state with significant depression but no bodily pain. Reinterpretation was used by 17 participants and involved reconstructing health states by changing underlying assumptions (eg, rationalizing selecting a health state with significant pain because they could take pain medications). Finally, some (n = 13) relied on previous experience when making decisions on some choice tasks. Participants with experience dealing with pain, for instance, prioritized health states with the least impact in this dimension. Conclusions: Qualitatively evaluating the decision-making strategies used in DCEs allows researchers to evaluate whether the tasks and attributes are interpreted accurately. The findings from this study add to the understanding of the generation of SF-6Dv2 health utility weights and the validity of these weights (e.g., reinterpreting health states could undermine the validity of DCEs and utility weights), and the overall usefulness of the SF-6Dv2. The methodology described in this study can and should be carried forth in valuing other health utility measures, not just the SF-6Dv2.
KW - discrete choice experiment
KW - health state utility
KW - qualitative
KW - SF-6Dv2
KW - think-aloud
U2 - 10.1016/j.jval.2022.07.018
DO - 10.1016/j.jval.2022.07.018
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 36064513
AN - SCOPUS:85138539828
VL - 25
SP - 2034
EP - 2043
JO - Value in Health
JF - Value in Health
SN - 1098-3015
IS - 12
ER -
ID: 345414267