| Title |
Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10198-013-0508-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arthur E. Attema, Yvette Edelaar-Peeters, Matthijs M. Versteegh, Elly A. Stolk |
| Abstract |
There is no scientific consensus on the optimal specification of the time trade-off (TTO) task. As a consequence, studies using TTO to value health states may share the core element of trading length of life for quality of life, but can differ considerably on many other elements. While this pluriformity in specifications advances the understanding of TTO from a methodological point of view, it also results in incomparable health state values. Health state values are applied in health technology assessments, and in that context comparability of information is desired. In this article, we discuss several alternative specifications of TTO presented in the literature. The defining elements of these specifications are identified as being either methodological, procedural or analytical in nature. Where possible, it is indicated how these elements affect health state values (i.e., upward or downward). Finally, a checklist for TTO studies is presented, which incorporates a list of choices to be made by researchers who wish to perform a TTO task. Such a checklist enables other researchers to align methodologies in order to enhance the comparability of health state values. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 183 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 32 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 31 | 17% |
| Unknown | 45 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 24% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 26 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 4% |
| Psychology | 7 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 34 | 18% |
| Unknown | 58 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2022.
All research outputs
#8,636,620
of 25,628,260 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#593
of 1,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,488
of 210,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#8
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,628,260 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,311 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,409 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.