Time trade-off with someone to live for: impact of having significant others on time trade-off valuations of hypothetical health states.
EQ-5D
Health state valuation
Health-related quality of life
Time trade-off
Journal
Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1573-2649
Titre abrégé: Qual Life Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9210257
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
accepted:
22
10
2021
pubmed:
1
11
2021
medline:
31
3
2022
entrez:
31
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The TTO task involves giving up life years, i.e. living a shorter life, to avoid an undesirable health state. Despite being a hypothetical task, some respondents take other life factors into account when completing the task. This study explored the effect of having children and/or a partner on TTO valuations of hypothetical EQ-5D-5L health states in a valuation study of the general population. The study used TTO data collected in a Norwegian EQ-5D-5L valuation study in 2019-2020, by one-to-one pc-assisted interviews following the EQ-VT protocol. We used regression modelling to determine the effect of significant others (having children or a partner) on disutility per health state from the TTO valuations. 430 respondents were included [mean age 43.8 (SD 15.9) years, 58% female, 48% with children, 68% with a partner, 25% with neither children nor partner]. Having children and/or a partner was associated with lowered willingness to trade life years translating to higher elicited health state utilities (p < 0.01). Having significant others, or the lack of having significant others, was associated with respondents' valuation of hypothetical health states using TTO, more so than traditional sampling variables such as age and sex. Inadequate representativeness in terms of having significant others could bias health state preference values in valuation studies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The TTO task involves giving up life years, i.e. living a shorter life, to avoid an undesirable health state. Despite being a hypothetical task, some respondents take other life factors into account when completing the task. This study explored the effect of having children and/or a partner on TTO valuations of hypothetical EQ-5D-5L health states in a valuation study of the general population.
METHODS
METHODS
The study used TTO data collected in a Norwegian EQ-5D-5L valuation study in 2019-2020, by one-to-one pc-assisted interviews following the EQ-VT protocol. We used regression modelling to determine the effect of significant others (having children or a partner) on disutility per health state from the TTO valuations.
RESULTS
RESULTS
430 respondents were included [mean age 43.8 (SD 15.9) years, 58% female, 48% with children, 68% with a partner, 25% with neither children nor partner]. Having children and/or a partner was associated with lowered willingness to trade life years translating to higher elicited health state utilities (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Having significant others, or the lack of having significant others, was associated with respondents' valuation of hypothetical health states using TTO, more so than traditional sampling variables such as age and sex. Inadequate representativeness in terms of having significant others could bias health state preference values in valuation studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34718936
doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-03026-6
pii: 10.1007/s11136-021-03026-6
pmc: PMC8556854
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1199-1207Subventions
Organisme : Norges Forskningsråd
ID : 262673
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
BMJ Open. 2020 Jun 11;10(6):e034683
pubmed: 32532768
Value Health. 2019 Jan;22(1):23-30
pubmed: 30661630
Health Econ. 2004 Aug;13(8):819-23
pubmed: 15322993
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Apr 09;12:48
pubmed: 24716709
Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):466-473
pubmed: 28292492
Value Health. 2017 Apr;20(4):662-669
pubmed: 28408009
Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Oct;34(10):993-1004
pubmed: 27084198
Qual Life Res. 2010 May;19(4):499-508
pubmed: 20174998
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Jul 02;13:94
pubmed: 26135391
Soc Sci Med. 2002 Mar;54(6):919-29
pubmed: 11996025
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Dec;19(9):1207-1211
pubmed: 29671142
Med Decis Making. 2007 Jul-Aug;27(4):406-13
pubmed: 17585007
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Nov;35(11):1153-1165
pubmed: 28695543
Health Econ. 2011 Mar;20(3):348-61
pubmed: 21308856
Health Econ. 2002 Jul;11(5):447-56
pubmed: 12112493
Qual Life Res. 2019 May;28(5):1201-1205
pubmed: 30523567
Value Health. 2014 Jun;17(4):445-53
pubmed: 24969006
Med Decis Making. 2014 Jul;34(5):655-65
pubmed: 24668419
Med Decis Making. 2008 Mar-Apr;28(2):209-19
pubmed: 18349440
Value Health. 2018 May;21(5):596-604
pubmed: 29753358
Qual Life Res. 2016 Dec;25(12):2997-3008
pubmed: 27444779
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777
Med Decis Making. 2016 Feb;36(2):187-98
pubmed: 26552410
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000 Jan;5(1):17-21
pubmed: 10787582
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018 Oct;18(5):551-558
pubmed: 29958008
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 Sep;37(9):1165-1176
pubmed: 31161586
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018 Jul 31;16(1):152
pubmed: 30064460