ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2025
Test-retest reliability of the Online Elicitation of Personal Utility Functions (OPUF) approach for valuing the EQ-HWB-S.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing Patient Participation in Co-Productive Decision-Making With Personal Value Sets: Clinical Trial Prototype.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- How well do participants understand the questions asked in the Online Personal Utility Functions (OPUF) approach? A cognitive debrief of the EQ-HWB-S (EQ Health and Wellbeing Short version) valuation.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe EQ Health and Wellbeing Short (EQ-HWB-S) is a new 9-item instrument designed to generate utility values. However, its length makes traditional preference elicitation challenging. The Online elicitation of Personal Utility Functions (OPUF) approach has been tested as a potential solution. This study aimed to assess the test-retest reliability of OPUF for valuing the EQ-HWB-S.
methodsThe OPUF survey was administered twice, two weeks apart, to 220 German participants, including 73 from the general population and 147 patients with diabetes or rheumatic disease. Test-retest reliability was evaluated at individual and aggregate levels, examining dimension rankings, swing weights, level weights, and anchoring factors. Continuous data were analysed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and ranking data were compared using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Individual and aggregate level utility decrements were assessed using ICC and t-tests.
resultsApproximately 36% of participants had significantly correlated dimension ranks, with 42% selecting the same top-ranked dimension. Poor agreement was shown in 70% of ICC values for individual dimension swing weights. For intermediate level weights, ICC values showed poor agreement in 70% and moderate agreement in 30% of responses. The kappa for individual pairwise comparison tasks was 0.64 (95% CI: 0.54-0.75) showing moderate agreement; however, the ICC for individual-level anchoring factors was 0.12 (p < 0.05), indicating poor agreement. Aggregate utility decrements across dimensions were similar.
conclusionThe OPUF approach generates reliable aggregate value sets for the EQ-HWB-S, but further exploration is needed to understand and address the reasons behind inconsistencies at the individual level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.