↓ Skip to main content

The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40273-016-0399-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard Norman, Brendan Mulhern, Rosalie Viney

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been proposed as a method to estimate utility weights for health states within utility instruments. However, the most appropriate method to anchor the utility values on the full health to dead quality-adjusted life year (QALY) scale remains uncertain. We test four approaches to anchoring in which dead is valued at zero and full health at one. We use data from two DCEs valuing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L health states, which presented pairs of health profiles with an associated duration, and a dead option. The approaches to anchoring the results on the required scale were (1) using only preferences between non-dead health profiles; (2) including the dead data, treating it as a health profile with zero duration; (3) explicitly modelling both duration and dead; and (4) using the preferences regarding the dead health state as an external anchor subsequent to the estimation of approach 1. All approaches lead to differences in the scale of utility decrements, but not the ranking of EQ-5D health states. The models differ in their ability to predict preferences around dead health states, and the characteristics of the value sets in terms of their range and the proportion of states valued as worse than dead. Appropriate anchoring of DCEs with or without complementary time trade-off (TTO) data remains unresolved, and the method chosen will impact on health resource allocation decision making employing the value sets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 22%
Other 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 May 2017.
All research outputs
#5,863,725
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#640
of 1,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,452
of 301,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#12
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 301,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
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 53% of its contemporaries.