ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Optimal DCE design for modelling nonlinear time preferences in EQ-5D-5L valuation studies: exploration of data from Denmark and Peru.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 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.
- Valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-5L Using DCE Methods That Account for Nonlinear Time Preferences.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- Eliciting and Anchoring Health State Preferences Using Discrete Choice Experiments Among Adults, Adolescents, and Children.PharmacoEconomics · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiscrete choice experiment (DCE) methods are an increasingly popular valuation method, particularly for the EQ-5D-5L. While EQ-5D-5L value sets developed using DCE have traditionally assumed linear time preferences, this assumption has been challenged. This has led to the development of DCE modelling methods that allow for nonlinear time preferences. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of a model that accounts for nonlinear time preferences with DCE choice set formats and design construction methods for EQ-5D-5L value sets.
methodsThis study used a four-arm (2 × 2) between-subjects design to investigate the impact of two commonly used DCE choice set formats (i.e. a third option of either immediate death or full health) and two commonly used DCE design construction methods (i.e. generator-developed and efficient designs) on EQ-5D-5L value sets. Mixed logit models that used exponential discounting to account for nonlinear time preferences were estimated in OpenBUGS. This was tested in a sample of respondents from Peru (n = 942) and Denmark (n = 988).
resultsAcross all arms and for both countries, discounting was found to be present when modelling explicitly for nonlinear time preferences. Although estimated discount rates varied widely from 1 to 117%, both type of choice set format and type of design construction method influenced the utilities for more severe health states. Choice sets with full health tended to produce a wider range of utility weights, while choice sets with immediate death tended to produce higher estimated discount rates. Generator-developed designs tended to produce the highest and lowest utility weights for health states compared to the efficient designs.
conclusionsThis study provides a comparison of DCE choice set format and design construction method when nonlinear time preferences were explicitly modelled. Limitations to this study are discussed including data quality issues with the Peruvian dataset and small sample sizes. Further investigation is needed to confirm the suitability of models that account for nonlinear time preferences in EQ-5D-5L valuation studies.
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.