Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5d6d958fb5-rfz7g Total loading time: 0.321 Render date: 2022-11-27T19:50:49.317Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

12 - BWS profile case application: preferences for quality of life in Australia

from Applications: Case 2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2015

Jordan J. Louviere
Affiliation:
University of South Australia
Terry N. Flynn
Affiliation:
University of Western Sydney
A. A. J. Marley
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Terry N. Flynn
Affiliation:
TF Choices Ltd.
Elisabeth Huynh
Affiliation:
University of South Australia
Get access

Summary

12.1 Introduction

This chapter uses Case 2 best-worst scaling – the profile case – to elicit the scores that Australians associate with aspects of the ICECAP-O quality-of-life (well-being) instrument. It expands upon the methods used in a smaller study to achieve similar aims for the ICECAP-A instrument in the United Kingdom (Flynn et al., 2015). In particular, it demonstrates how latent class analyses can be used to identify distinct clusters of individuals with different preferences in their Case 2 answers. It is written for non-health economists, and therefore includes details of the “non-welfarist” paradigm that many work within.

Health care agencies in a number of advanced industrialized countries other than the United States do not fund interventions according to the patient's willingness to pay. Instead of this traditional economics “welfarist” approach, an “extra-welfarist” (or “non-welfarist”) approach is used that assigns a value to every possible health state based on some average of the population's preferences (Brouwer et al., 2008). In order to elicit these population-based preferences à priori, the set of “all possible health states” must be circumscribed in some way. This is done via the use of a standardized health (or health-related quality-of-life) instrument. The most common health instrument, the EQ-5D (Dolan et al., 1995; Kind et al., 1998), has five attributes, each with three possible attribute levels (response categories). In DCE parlance, this makes it a 35 instrument in 243 possible unique health states.

Once the set of health states has been standardized, a stated preference valuation exercise is conducted to elicit the population's preferences. The aim is to produce an “off-the-shelf” set of values – the “tariff” – summarizing the preferences of the relevant (typically country-specific whole-adult) population. Traditionally valuation exercises used numerical tasks (Arnesen and Trommald, 2005; Richardson, 1994) but in recent years discrete-choice-based tasks rooted in a random utility theory framework have increasingly been used (Flynn, 2010a; Thurstone, 1927). These have included discrete choice experiments, ranking tasks and BWS studies (Coast, Flynn, Natarajan et al., 2008; Ryan et al., 2006; Salomon, 2003). The paradigm used to conceptualize the tariff is described elsewhere but suffice to say that it must be possible to make statements such as “relative to full health, the health state characterized by moderate depression, but otherwise good health, might have a value of 74 percent while that of extreme pain might have a value of 60 percent”.

Type
Chapter
Information
Best-Worst Scaling
Theory, Methods and Applications
, pp. 240 - 262
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
1
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×