Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Karin G.M.

IJzerman, Maarten J.

Til, Janine A. van

Weernink, Marieke G.M.

Weernink, Marieke Geertruida Maria

Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Karin

IJzerman, Maarten Joost

van Til, Janine Astrid

NARCIS 

Comparison of treatment alternatives in Parkinson's disease with best-wordt scaling, time trade-off and visual analogue scales

University of Twente Research Information

Comparison of Treatment Alternatives in Parkinson’s Disease with Best-Worst Scaling, Time Trade-Off and Visual Analogue Scales University Twente, Health Technology & Services Research, MIRA institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, Enschede Marieke G.M. Weernink, Karin G.M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Maarten J. IJzerman, Janine A. van Til  • The ability to determine the utility of the process of care  would benefit estimation of cost-effectiveness.  • Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) and Time Trade Off (TTO) are thought to be insensitive to small differences in process and outcome of care. • Best-Worst scaling (BWS) was proposed as a sensitive and valid method to generate utilities.  • As BWS estimates utilities on a latent scale, a key challenge is the anchoring of values to the health utility scale.  • We propose to anchor indirect elicited BWS utility weights into traditional health state utilities on the QALY scale (0-1) and derive a functional form. Table 2 : Paired t-test results of comparison of mean treatment profiles   1) What is the agreement in utility estimates with BWS, VAS and TTO of six different treatment alternatives? (validity)  1) To what extent are BWS, VAS and TTO estimates able (sensitive) to differentiate between the utility of the six different treatment alternatives?  Table 1: Mean utility scores of four methods Background Research Questions Methods Discussion  • Public sample of 596 respondents (online survey) • Valuation of six treatment profiles in Parkinson’s Disease using TTO and VAS.  • BWS2 and BWS3 choice questions,  following a D-efficient design  result in BWS utility weights for same six treatment profiles.    0102030405060708090100BWS2 BWS3 VAS TTOAttribute suffer from: Worst  profile Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Profile 4 Best  profile Tremors Often Often Seldom  Seldom  Sometimes Seldom  Posture and balance problems Often Seldom Seldom  Often Sometimes Seldom  Slowness of motion Often Seldom Seldom  Often Sometimes Seldom Dizziness Often Often Often Seldom  Seldom  Seldom Drowsiness Often Sometimes Often Often Seldom Seldom Dyskinesia Often Often Often Seldom Seldom Seldom  Mode of administration Brain surgery Tablets Tablets Tablets Tablets Tablets Despite scaling differences, there is no statistical significant difference in BWS, TTO or VAS utility values; each of the mean-utility scores follows a monotonic relationship (table 1) and the correlation across-respondents means was very strong for all methods (VAS-BWS2 .985; VAS-BWS3 0.989; TTO-BWS2 0.987; TTO-BWS3 0.987, BWS2-BWS3 0.989; P<0.000, n=422).  Mean comparison of df BWS2 BWS3 VAS TTO Worst – Best 421 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 Worst – profile 1 203 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 profile 1 – profile 2 69 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 t = 1.931, P 0.029 profile 2 – profile 3 63 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 t = 0.509, P 0.306 t =1.107, P 0.136 profile 3 – profile 4 72 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 t = 2.005, P 0.024 profile 4 – Best 214 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 P< 0.000 Treatment profile BWS2 BWS3 VAS TTO Worst -4.32 -1.46 .25 .34 Profile 1 13.42 2.31 .48 .59 Profile 2 17.53 2.85 .53 .69 Profile 3 20.28 3.32 .55 .77 Profile 4 24.03 5.25 .65 .88 Best 30.26 6.00 .78 .93 Results More information: Marieke Weernink MSc PhD candidate W: www.utwente.nl/mb/htsr E: m.g.m.weernink@utwente.nl  - Profile 4  Best Profile  - Profile 1  Profile 4  - Worst Profile  Profile 1 Percentage of methods own scale Both BWS methods are able to differentiate between all six treatment profiles, VAS and TTO are less sensitive (table 2).  All methods use different parts of their own scale to value treatment profiles.  Figure 2: Distribution of a methods scale to discriminate between treatment profiles Figure 1: Scatterplot of mean-utility scores                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

English

Comparison of treatment alternatives in Parkinson's disease with best-wordt scaling, time trade-off and visual analogue scales

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NARCIS

University of Twente Research Information