Exploring the Comparability of Face-to-Face Versus Video Conference-Based Composite Time Trade-Off Interviews: Insights from EQ-5D-Y-3L Valuation Studies in Belgium and Spain.
Journal
The patient
ISSN: 1178-1661
Titre abrégé: Patient
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101309314
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2022
09 2022
Historique:
accepted:
16
01
2022
pubmed:
17
2
2022
medline:
13
8
2022
entrez:
16
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Face-to-face interviews are recommended for the collection of composite time trade-off (cTTO) data. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) social distancing measures made researchers consider videoconferencing interviews as an alternative mode of administration, but little evidence about the implementation of videoconferencing in valuation studies is available. This study provides insights into the effect of videoconferencing on the quality of data, evaluating interviewers' and respondents' engagement level in videoconferences compared with face-to-face interviews. We used cTTO data collected in Belgium and Spain following the EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation protocol. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, both projects interrupted the face-to-face data collection before reaching the target sample. The remaining interviews were conducted by videoconference. We compared both modes of administration in terms of interviewers' engagement (task duration and number of moves in each example) and respondents' engagement (task duration and proportions of specific response values, in half-year units). To minimise interviewers' learning effects, we split our sample into three groups: (1) first 20 interviews conducted face-to-face; (2) subsequent interviews conducted face-to-face; and (3) videoconferencing interviews. The comparison between videoconferencing and subsequent face-to-face interviews showed the interviewer's engagement was not affected by the mode of administration as almost no significant results were found either in the task duration or the numbers of moves shown in the examples. Similarly, none of the respondents' task duration or proportion of specific responses or half-year units were affected by the mode of administration in either of the two countries. No evidence suggested that the quality of cTTO data is reduced when using videoconferencing compared with face-to-face interviews.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Face-to-face interviews are recommended for the collection of composite time trade-off (cTTO) data. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) social distancing measures made researchers consider videoconferencing interviews as an alternative mode of administration, but little evidence about the implementation of videoconferencing in valuation studies is available. This study provides insights into the effect of videoconferencing on the quality of data, evaluating interviewers' and respondents' engagement level in videoconferences compared with face-to-face interviews.
METHODS
We used cTTO data collected in Belgium and Spain following the EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation protocol. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, both projects interrupted the face-to-face data collection before reaching the target sample. The remaining interviews were conducted by videoconference. We compared both modes of administration in terms of interviewers' engagement (task duration and number of moves in each example) and respondents' engagement (task duration and proportions of specific response values, in half-year units). To minimise interviewers' learning effects, we split our sample into three groups: (1) first 20 interviews conducted face-to-face; (2) subsequent interviews conducted face-to-face; and (3) videoconferencing interviews.
RESULTS
The comparison between videoconferencing and subsequent face-to-face interviews showed the interviewer's engagement was not affected by the mode of administration as almost no significant results were found either in the task duration or the numbers of moves shown in the examples. Similarly, none of the respondents' task duration or proportion of specific responses or half-year units were affected by the mode of administration in either of the two countries.
CONCLUSIONS
No evidence suggested that the quality of cTTO data is reduced when using videoconferencing compared with face-to-face interviews.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35169979
doi: 10.1007/s40271-022-00573-z
pii: 10.1007/s40271-022-00573-z
pmc: PMC8853046
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
521-535Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Attema AE, Edelaar-Peeters Y, Versteegh MM, Stolk EA. Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0508-x .
doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0508-x
pubmed: 23900665
Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0404-1
pubmed: 27084198
pmcid: 5023738
Lugnér AK, Krabbe PFM. An overview of the time trade-off method: concept, foundation, and the evaluation of distorting factors in putting a value on health. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2020;20(4):331–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2020.1779062 .
doi: 10.1080/14737167.2020.1779062
pubmed: 32552002
Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PF, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002
pubmed: 24969006
Stolk E, Ludwig K, Rand K, van Hout B, Ramos-Goñi JM. Overview, update, and lessons learned from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation work: version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2019;22(1):23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.010
pubmed: 30661630
Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Stolk E, Shah K, Kreimeier S, Rivero-Arias O, et al. International valuation protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(7):653–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00909-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s40273-020-00909-3
pubmed: 32297224
Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Slaap B, Busschbach JJ, Stolk E. Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health. 2017;20(3):466–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.012 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.012
pubmed: 28292492
Norman R, King MT, Clarke D, Viney R, Cronin P, Street D. Does mode of administration matter? Comparison of online and face-to-face administration of a time trade-off task. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):499–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9609-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9609-5
pubmed: 20174998
Jiang R, Shaw J, Mühlbacher A, Lee TA, Walton S, Kohlmann T, et al. Comparison of online and face-to-face valuation of the EQ-5D-5L using composite time trade-off. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(5):1433–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02712-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02712-1
pubmed: 33247810
Lipman SA. Time for tele-TTO? Lessons learned from digital interviewer-assisted time trade-off data collection. Patient. 2021;14(5):459–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00490-z .
doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00490-z
pubmed: 33345290
Duffy B, Smith K, Terhanian G, Bremer J. Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys. Int J Mark Res. 2005;47:615–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530504700602 .
doi: 10.1177/147078530504700602
Ramos-Goñi JM, Craig BM, Oppe M, Ramallo-Fariña Y, Pinto-Prades JL, Luo N, et al. Handling data quality issues to estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set using a hybrid interval regression approach. Value Health. 2018;21(5):596–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.023 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.023
pubmed: 29753358
Wong ELY, Ramos-Goñi JM, Cheung AWL, Wong AYK, Rivero-Arias O. Assessing the use of a feedback module to model EQ-5D-5L health states values in Hong Kong. Patient. 2018;11(2):235–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0278-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s40271-017-0278-0
pubmed: 29019161
Hernandez Alava M, Pudney S, Wailoo A. The EQ-5D-5L value set for England: findings of a quality assurance program. Value Health. 2020;23(5):642–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.10.017 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.10.017
pubmed: 32389230
Finch AP, Meregaglia M, Ciani O, Roudijk B, Jommi C. An EQ-5D-5L value set for Italy using videoconferencing interviews and feasibility of a new mode of administration. Soc Sci Med. 2022;292: 114519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114519 .
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114519
pubmed: 34736804
Webb EJD, Kind P, Meads D, Martin A. Does a health crisis change how we value health? Health Econ. 2021;30(10):2547–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4399 .
doi: 10.1002/hec.4399
pubmed: 34302310