Skip to main content

[]

Intended for healthcare professionals
Skip to main content
Restricted access
Research article
First published online July 9, 2014

The Lead Time Tradeoff: The Case of Health States Better Than Dead

Abstract

Background. Lead time tradeoff (L-TTO) is a variant of the time tradeoff (TTO). L-TTO introduces a lead period in full health before illness onset, avoiding the need to use 2 different procedures for states better and worse than dead. To estimate utilities, additive separability is assumed. We tested to what extent violations of this assumption can bias utilities estimated with L-TTO. Methods. A sample of 500 members of the Spanish general population evaluated 24 health states, using face-to-face interviews. A total of 188 subjects were interviewed with L-TTO and the rest with TTO. Both samples evaluated the same set of 24 health states, divided into 4 groups with 6 health states per set. Each subject evaluated 1 of the sets. A random effects regression model was fitted to our data. Only health states better than dead were included in the regression since it is in this subset where additive separability can be tested clearly. Results. Utilities were higher in L-TTO in relation to TTO (on average L-TTO adds about 0.2 points to the utility of health states), suggesting that additive separability is violated. The difference between methods increased with the severity of the health state. Thus, L-TTO adds about 0.14 points to the average utility of the less severe states, 0.23 to the intermediate states, and 0.28 points to the more severe estates. Conclusions. L-TTO produced higher utilities than TTO. Health problems are perceived as less severe if a lead period in full health is added upfront, implying that there are interactions between disjointed time periods. The advantages of this method have to be compared with the cost of modeling the interaction between periods.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1972;7(2):118–33.
2. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1–30.
3. Miyamoto J, Wakker PPZ, Bleichrodt H, Peters H. The zero-condition: a simplifying assumption in QALY measurement. Manag Sci. 1998;44:839–49.
4. Robinson A, Spencer A. Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead. Health Econ. 2006;15(4):393–402.
5. Tilling C, Devlin N, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K. Protocols for time trade off valuations of health states worse than dead: a literature review. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(5):610–9.
6. Augestad LA, Rand-Hendriksen K, Sønbø Kristiansen I, Stavem K. Learning effects in time trade-off based valuation of EQ-5D health states. Value Health. 2012;15(2):340–5.
7. Devlin NJ, Tsuchiya A, Buckingham K, Tilling C. A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the “lead time” approach. Health Econ. 2011;20(3):348–61.
8. Attema AE, Versteegh MM, Oppe M, Brouwer W, Stolk EA. Lead time TTO: leading to better health state valuations?Health Econ. 2012;22(4):376-392.
9. San Miguel F, Ryan M, Amaya-Amaya M. “Irrational” stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. Health Econ. 2005;14(3):307–22.
10. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(6):1523–32.
11. Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, Hays RD, Patrick DL, Symonds T; Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(2):285–95.
12. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70.
13. Feeny D, Spritzer K, Hays RD, et al. Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(2):273–86.
14. Wakker P. A criticism of healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making. 1996;16(3):207–14.
15. Harvey CM. Value functions for infinite period planning. Manag Sci. 1986;32:1123–39.
16. Mazur JE. An adjustment procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In: Commons ML, Mazur JE, Nevins JA, Rachlin H, eds. Quantitative Analysis of Behaviour: The Effect of Delay and Intervening Events on Reinforcement Value. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum; 1987.
17. van der Pol M, Cairns J. A comparison of the discounted utility model and hyperbolic discounting models in the case of social and private intertemporal preferences for health. J Econ Behav Org. 2002;49:79–96.
18. van Nooten FE, Koolman X, Brouwer WB. The influence of subjective life expectancy on health state valuations using a 10 year TTO. Health Econ. 2009;18(5):549–58.
19. van Nooten FE, Koolman X, Busschbach JJ, Brouwer WB. Thirty down, only ten to go?! Awareness and influence of a 10-year time frame in TTO. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):377–84.
20. Heintz E, Krol M, Levin LA. The impact of patients’ subjective life expectancy on time tradeoff valuations. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(2):261–70.
21. Versteegh MM, Attema AE, Oppe M, Devlin NJ, Stolk EA. Time to tweak the TTO. But how?Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14:43–51.
22. Devlin N, Buckingham K, Shah K, et al. A comparison of alternative variants of the lead and lag time TTO. Health Econ. 2013;22(5):517–32.
23. Richardson J, Hall J, Salkeld G. The measurement of utility in multiphase health states. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12(1):151–62.
24. Kuppermann M, Shiboski S, Feeny D, Elkin E, Washington E. Can preference scores for discrete states be used to derive preference scores for an entire path of events? An application to prenatal diagnosis. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(1):42–55.
25. Krabbe PFM, Bonsel GJ. Sequence effects, health profiles, and the QALY model. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(2):178–86.
26. Lin MR, Yu WY, Wang SC. Examination of assumptions in using time tradeoff and standard gamble utilities in individuals with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(2):245–52.
27. Treadwell JR. Tests of preferential independence in the QALY model. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(4):418–28.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
Email Article Link
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: July 9, 2014
Issue published: April 2015

Keywords

  1. cost utility analysis
  2. lead time trade off
  3. states better than dead
  4. additive separability
  5. random effects regression

Rights and permissions

© The Author(s) 2014.
PubMed: 25009190

Authors

Affiliations

José Luis Pinto-Prades, PhD
Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, PhD
Glasgow Caledonian University, Newton Mearns, UK (JLPP)
University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain (EMRM)

Notes

José Luís Pinto-Prades, Glasgow Caledonian University, 5 Firwood Road, Newton Mearns, G77 5PX, UK; e-mail: [email protected].

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Medical Decision Making.

View All Journal Metrics

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 204

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 5 view articles Opens in new tab

Crossref: 6

  1. Comparison of Caregiver and General Population Preferences for Dependency-Related Health States
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  2. This Dead or That Dead: Framing Effects in the Evaluation of Health States
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  3. Behavioral Theories That Have Influenced the Way Health State Preferences Are Elicited and Interpreted: A Bibliometric Mapping Analysis of the Time Trade-Off Method With VOSviewer Visualization
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  4. The QALY at 50: One story many voices
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  5. Decision thresholds with genetic testing
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  6. Population-Based Health Utility Assessment of Migraine Headache Symptoms before and after Surgical Intervention
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

SMDM members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.

SMDM members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Full Text

View Full Text