Tsuchiya, A. and Ternent, L. (2013) A note on the expected biases in conventional iterative health state valuation protocols. Discussion Paper. HEDS Discussion Paper (12.11).
Abstract
Background: Typical health state valuation exercises use trade off methods, such as the Time Trade Off or the Standard Gamble, involving a series of iterated questions so that a value for each health state by each individual respondent is elicited. This iterative process is a source of potential biases, but this has not received much attention in the health state valuation literature. The issue has been researched widely in the contingent valuation (CV) literature which elicits the monetary value of hypothetical outcomes. Methods: The lessons learnt in the CV literature are revisited in the context of the design and administration of health state valuations. The paper introduces the main known biases in the CV literature, and then examines how each might affect conventional iterative health state valuations. Results: Of the eight main types of biases, starting point bias, range bias, and incentive incompatibility bias are found to be potentially relevant. Furthermore, the magnitude and direction of the bases are unlikely to be uniform, and depend on the range of the value (e.g. between 0 and 0.5). Limitation: this is an overview paper and the conclusions drawn need to be tested empirically. Conclusions: health state valuation studies, like CV studies, are susceptible to a number of possible biases that affect the resulting values. Their magnitude and direction are unlikely to be uniform, and thus empirical studies are needed to diagnose the problem and if necessary to address it.
Metadata
Item Type: | Monograph |
---|---|
Authors/Creators: |
|
Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: | This series is intended to promote discussion and to provide information about work in progress. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, and should not be quoted without their permission. Comments are welcome, and should be sent to the corresponding author. A later, substantially shorter version of this paper, without the examples, is accepted for publication from Medical Decision Making, doi: 10.1177/0272989X12475093 |
Dates: |
|
Institution: | The University of Sheffield |
Academic Units: | The University of Sheffield > Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health (Sheffield) > School of Health and Related Research (Sheffield) > Health Economics and Decision Science > HEDS Discussion Paper Series |
Depositing User: | ScHARR / HEDS (Sheffield) |
Date Deposited: | 12 Apr 2013 13:21 |
Last Modified: | 27 Mar 2018 12:03 |
Status: | Published |
Series Name: | HEDS Discussion Paper |
Open Archives Initiative ID (OAI ID): | oai:eprints.whiterose.ac.uk:75395 |