Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36396877›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2022

Analytical Considerations When Anchoring Discrete Choice Experiment Values Using Composite Time Trade-Off Data: The Case of EQ-5D-Y-3L.

David J Mott, Nancy J Devlin, Simone Kreimeier, Richard Norman, Koonal K Shah, Oliver Rivero-Arias

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Do EQ-5D-Y-3L value sets have common properties, and how do they compare to EQ-5D-5L value sets?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  3. Value set of EQ-5D-Y-3L for Hong Kong.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. An Australian Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

David J MottOffice of Health Economics, London, UK. dmott@ohe.org.ORCID 0000-0001-5959-8447
Nancy J DevlinMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Simone KreimeierDepartment of Health Economics and Health Care Management, School of Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Richard NormanSchool of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Koonal K ShahNational Institute of Health and Care Excellence, London, UK.
Oliver Rivero-AriasNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are becoming increasingly used to elicit preferences for children's health states. However, DCE data need to be anchored to produce value sets, and composite time trade-off (cTTO) data are typically used in the context of EQ-5D-Y-3L valuation. The objective of this paper is to compare different anchoring methods, summarise the characteristics of the value sets they produce, and outline key considerations for analysts. Three anchoring methods were compared using data from published studies: (1) rescaling using the mean value for the worst health state; (2) linear mapping; and (3) hybrid modelling. The worst state rescaling value set had the largest range. The worst state rescaling and linear mapping value sets preserved the relative importance of the dimensions from the DCE, whereas the hybrid model value set did not. Overall, the predicted values from the hybrid model value set were more closely aligned with the cTTO values. These findings are relatively generalisable. Deciding upon which anchoring approach to use is challenging, as there are numerous considerations. Where cTTO data are collected for more than one health state, anchoring on the worst health state will arguably be suboptimal. However, the final choice of approach may require value judgements to be made. Researchers should seek input from relevant stakeholders when commencing valuation studies to help guide decisions and should clearly set out their rationale for their preferred anchoring approach in study outputs.

Indexed as

Health StatusQuality of LifeChildChild HealthHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36396877
PMCPMC9758092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.