Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states

被引:26
作者
Peasgood, Tessa [1 ,4 ]
Bourke, Mackenzie [1 ]
Devlin, Nancy [1 ]
Rowen, Donna [2 ]
Yang, Yaling [3 ]
Dalziel, Kim [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Melbourne, Melbourne Sch Populat & Global Hlth, Ctr Hlth Policy, Hlth Econ Unit, Carlton, Vic, Australia
[2] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res, Sheffield, England
[3] Univ Oxford, Nuffield Dept Primary Care Hlth Sci, Oxford, England
[4] Univ Melbourne, Melbourne Sch Populat & Global Hlth, Ctr Hlth Policy, Hlth Econ Unit, Level 4,207 Bouverie, Carlton, Vic 3010, Australia
关键词
EQ-5D-5L; EuroQol valuation protocol (EQ-VT); Composite time trade off (TTO); Videoconference; IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; VALUATION; EQUIVALENCE; INDEX;
D O I
10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115818
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Introduction: Health state valuation studies using composite time trade-off (cTTO) interviews have historically been conducted face-to-face. The COVID-19 pandemic forced disruptive innovation meaning a number of valuation studies conducted interviews via videoconference. These studies found online interviews feasible and acceptable; however, studies were not constructed to test the impact of online versus face-to-face interviews. This study builds on its sister study from the UK and aims to assess the acceptability and equivalence of in person face-to-face interviews with online interviews on cTTO valuation outcomes and on data quality.Methods: Participants were recruited into a randomised equivalence study via an external research company. Consenting participants were randomly allocated to complete a cTTO interview face-to-face or online, using the same 10 EQ-5D-5L health states. Mean and distribution of the cTTO values, participant understanding, data quality, demographic characteristics, participant preference, participant engagement and participant feedback were all compared across interview mode. Statistical equivalence for cTTO values for each state was tested using two one-sided t-tests by mode. Finally, regression analysis was completed to assess the impacts of interview mode on cTTO value while controlling for demographic characteristics of the participants.Results: Mean cTTO values were shown to be equivalent for mild health states and showed no significant dif-ference for serious health states. The proportion of individuals who expressed an interest in the study but declined to arrange an interview after finding out their randomisation was significantly higher for the face-to-face (21.6%) than the online group (1.8%). No significant difference was found between groups for partici-pant engagement, understanding or feedback nor for any indicators of data quality.Conclusion: Administrating interviews face to face or online did not appear to have a statistically significant impact on mean cTTO values. Offering both online and face-to-face interviews routinely allows all participants to select the most convenient option.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
Brazier J., 2017, Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation
[2]   The minimum clinically important difference for EQ-5D index: a critical review [J].
Coretti, Silvia ;
Ruggeri, Matteo ;
McNamee, Paul .
EXPERT REVIEW OF PHARMACOECONOMICS & OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2014, 14 (02) :221-233
[3]   Face-to-Face Compared With Online Collected Accounts of Health and Illness Experiences: A Scoping Review [J].
Davies, Louise ;
LeClair, Karissa L. ;
Bagley, Pamela ;
Blunt, Heather ;
Hinton, Lisa ;
Ryan, Sara ;
Ziebland, Sue .
QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2020, 30 (13) :2092-2102
[4]   Exploring the Comparability of Face-to-Face Versus Video Conference-Based Composite Time Trade-Off Interviews: Insights from EQ-5D-Y-3L Valuation Studies in Belgium and Spain [J].
Estevez-Carrillo, Anabel ;
Dewilde, Sarah ;
Oppe, Mark ;
Ramos-Goni, Juan M. .
PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2022, 15 (05) :521-535
[5]   An EQ-5D-5L value set for Italy using videoconferencing interviews and feasibility of a new mode of administration [J].
Finch, Aureliano Paolo ;
Meregaglia, Michela ;
Ciani, Oriana ;
Roudijk, Bram ;
Jommi, Claudio .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2022, 292
[6]   The Singaporean English and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D achieved measurement equivalence in cancer patients [J].
Gao, Fei ;
Ng, Gim-Yew ;
Cheung, Yin-Bun ;
Thumboo, Julian ;
Pang, Grace ;
Koo, Wen-Hsin ;
Sethi, Vijay-Kumar ;
Wee, Joseph ;
Goh, Cynthia .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2009, 62 (02) :206-213
[7]   Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity [J].
Janssen, Bas M. F. ;
Oppe, Mark ;
Versteegh, Matthijs M. ;
Stolk, Elly A. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2013, 14 :S5-S13
[8]   The Danish EQ-5D-5L Value Set: A Hybrid Model Using cTTO and DCE Data [J].
Jensen, Cathrine Elgaard ;
Sorensen, Sabrina Storgaard ;
Gudex, Claire ;
Jensen, Morten Berg ;
Pedersen, Kjeld Moller ;
Ehlers, Lars Holger .
APPLIED HEALTH ECONOMICS AND HEALTH POLICY, 2021, 19 (04) :579-591
[9]   Comparison of online and face-to-face valuation of the EQ-5D-5L using composite time trade-off [J].
Jiang, Ruixuan ;
Shaw, James ;
Muehlbacher, Axel ;
Lee, Todd A. ;
Walton, Surrey ;
Kohlmann, Thomas ;
Norman, Richard ;
Pickard, A. Simon .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2021, 30 (05) :1433-1444
[10]   Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines [J].
Kennedy-Martin, Matthew ;
Slaap, Bernhard ;
Herdman, Michael ;
van Reenen, Mandy ;
Kennedy-Martin, Tessa ;
Greiner, Wolfgang ;
Busschbach, Jan ;
Boye, Kristina S. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2020, 21 (08) :1245-1257