The de facto standard method for valuing EQ-5D health states is the time trade-off (TTO), an iterative choice procedure. The TTO requires a starting point (SP), an initial offer of time in full health which is compared to a fixed offer of time in impaired health. From the SP, the time in full health is manipulated until preferential indifference. The SP is arbitrary, but may influence respondents, an effect known as anchoring bias. The aim of the study was to explore the potential anchoring effect and its magnitude in TTO experiments.
Methods
A total of 1249 respondents valued 8 EQ-5D health states in a Web study. We used the lead time TTO (LT-TTO) which allows eliciting negative and positive values with a uniform method. Respondents were randomized to 11 different SPs. Anchoring bias was assessed using OLS regression with SP as the independent variable. In a secondary experiment, we compared two different SPs in the UK EQ-5D valuation study TTO protocol.
Results
A 1-year increase in the SP, corresponding to an increase in TTO value of 0.1, resulted in 0.02 higher recorded LT-TTO value. SP had little impact on the relative distance and ordering of the eight health states. Results were similar to the secondary experiment.
Conclusion
The anchoring effect may bias TTO values. In this Web-based valuation study, the observed anchoring effect was substantial. Further studies are needed to determine whether the effect is present in face-to-face experiments.
Unsere Produktempfehlungen
Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"
Online-Abonnement
Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:
Sie erhalten uneingeschränkten Vollzugriff auf die Inhalte der Fachgebiete Business IT + Informatik und Management + Führung und damit auf über 30.000 Fachbücher und ca. 130 Fachzeitschriften.
Sie erhalten uneingeschränkten Vollzugriff auf alle acht Fachgebiete von Springer Professional und damit auf über 45.000 Fachbücher und ca. 300 Fachzeitschriften.
Wisløff, T., Hagen, G., Hamidi, V., Movik, E., Klemp, M., & Olsen, J. A. (2014). Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: A review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010.
PharmacoEconomics,32(4), 367–375.
CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study.
Health Economics,5(2), 141–154.
CrossRefPubMed
3.
Patrick, D. L., Starks, H. E., Cain, K. C., Uhlmann, R. F., & Pearlman, R. A. (1994). Measuring preferences for health states worse than death.
Medical Decision Making,14(1), 9–18.
CrossRefPubMed
4.
Tilling, C., Devlin, N., Tsuchiya, A., & Buckingham, K. (2010). Protocols for time tradeoff valuations of health states worse than dead: A literature review.
Medical Decision Making,30(5), 610.
CrossRefPubMed
5.
Lenert, L., & Kaplan, R. M. (2000). Validity and interpretation of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life.
Medical care,38(9), II-138.
6.
Lenert, L., & Treadwell, J. (1999). Effect of failure to maintain procedural invariance on utility elicitations.
Medical Decision Making,19(4), 473–481.
CrossRefPubMed
7.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science,185(4157), 1124.
CrossRefPubMed
8.
Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect.
The Journal of Socio-Economics,40(1), 35–42.
CrossRef
9.
Nord, E. (1995). The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs.
Medical Decision Making,15(3), 201–208.
CrossRefPubMed
10.
Stålhammar, N.-O. (1996). An empirical note on willingness to pay and starting-point bias.
Medical Decision Making,16(3), 242–247.
CrossRefPubMed
11.
McNamee, P., Ternent, L., Gbangou, A., & Newlands, D. (2010). A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method.
Health Economics,19(1), 75–87.
PubMed
12.
van Exel, N. J. A., Brouwer, W. B. F., van den Berg, B., & Koopmanschap, M. A. (2006). With a little help from an anchor: Discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation.
The Journal of Socio-Economics,35(5), 836–853.
CrossRef
13.
Ternent, L., & Tsuchiya, A. (2013). A note on the expected biases in conventional iterative health state valuation protocols.
Medical Decision Making,33(4), 544–546.
CrossRefPubMed
14.
Lenert, L. A., Cher, D. J., Goldstein, M. K., Bergen, M. R., & Garber, A. (1998). The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations.
Medical Decision Making,18(1), 76.
CrossRefPubMed
15.
Dolan, P. (2011). Thinking about it: Thoughts about health and valuing QALYs.
Health Economics,20(12), 1407–1416.
CrossRefPubMed
16.
Robinson, A., & Spencer, A. (2006). Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: Valuing states worse than dead.
Health Economics,15(4), 393–402.
CrossRefPubMed
17.
Devlin, N. J., Tsuchiya, A., Buckingham, K., & Tilling, C. (2011). A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: Feasibility study of the “lead time” approach.
Health Economics,20(3), 348–361.
CrossRefPubMed
18.
Devlin, N., Buckingham, K., Shah, K., Tsuchiya, A., Tilling, C., Wilkinson, G., & van Hout, B. (2013). A comparison of alternative variants of the lead and lag time TTO.
Health Economics,22(5), 517–532.
CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kind, P., Brooks, R., & Rabin, R. (2005).
EQ-5D concepts and methods: A developmental history. Berlin: Springer.
CrossRef
20.
Augestad, L. A., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Kristiansen, I. S., & Stavem, K. (2012). Learning effects in time trade-off based valuation of EQ-5D health states.
Value in Health,15(2), 340–345.
CrossRefPubMed
21.
Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states.
Medical Care,35(11), 1095–1108.
CrossRefPubMed
22.
Attema, A. E., Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Versteegh, M. M., & Stolk, E. A. (2013). Time trade-off: One methodology, different methods.
The European Journal of Health Economics,14(1), 53–64.
CrossRefPubMedCentral
23.
Attema, A. E., Versteegh, M. M., Oppe, M., Brouwer, W. B. F., & Stolk, E. A. (2013). Lead time TTo: Leading to better health state valuations?
Health Economics,22(4), 376–392.
CrossRefPubMed
24.
Versteegh, M. M., Attema, A. E., Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., & Stolk, E. A. (2013). Time to tweak the TTO: Results from a comparison of alternative specifications of the TTO.
The European Journal of Health Economics,14(1), 43–51.
CrossRefPubMedCentral
25.
Heerwegh, D., & Loosveldt, G. (2008). Face-to-face versus web surveying in a high-Internet-coverage population.
Public Opinion Quarterly,72(5), 836–846.
CrossRef
26.
Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The “below-average effect” and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgements.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77(2), 221–232.
CrossRefPubMed
27.
Rand-Hendriksen, K., Augestad, L. A., Dahl, F. A., Kristiansen, I. S., & Stavem, K. (2012). A shortcut to mean-based time tradeoff tariffs for the EQ-5D?
Medical Decision Making,32(4), 569–577.
CrossRefPubMed
28.
Augestad, L. A., Rand-Hendriksen, K., Stavem, K., & Kristiansen, I. S. (2013). Time trade-off and attitudes toward euthanasia: Implications of using “death” as an anchor in health state valuation.
Quality of Life Research,22(4), 705–714.
CrossRefPubMed
Über diesen Artikel
Titel
Influenced from the start: anchoring bias in time trade-off valuations
Autoren:
Liv Ariane Augestad Knut Stavem Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen Carl Haakon Samuelsen Kim Rand-Hendriksen
Publikationsdatum
26.03.2016
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1266-x
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Zeitschrift
Quality of Life Research
An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation - An Official Journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research
Ausgabe 9/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
Die B2B-Firmensuche für Industrie und Wirtschaft: Kostenfrei in Firmenprofilen nach Lieferanten, Herstellern, Dienstleistern und Händlern recherchieren.
Das Management des Digitalisierungsprozesses ist eine drängende Herausforderung für fast jedes Unternehmen. Ausgehend von drei aufeinander aufbauenden empirischen Untersuchungen lesen Sie hier, welche generellen Themenfelder und konkreten Aufgaben sich dem Management im Rahmen dieses Prozesses stellen. Erfahren Sie hier, warum das Management der digitalen Transformation als separates Konzept zum Informationsmanagement zu betrachten und so auch organisatorisch separiert zu implementieren ist. Jetzt gratis downloaden!
