Comparison of online and face-to-face valuation of the EQ-5D-5L using composite time trade-off

• Published in: Quality of life research Vol. 30; no. 5; pp. 1433 - 1444
• Main Authors: Jiang, Ruixuan, Shaw, James, Mühlbacher, Axel, Lee, Todd A., Walton, Surrey, Kohlmann, Thomas, Norman, Richard, Pickard, A. Simon
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01-05-2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Female; Health Status; Humans; Internet Use - trends; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Public Health; Quality of Life - psychology; Quality of Life Research; Referral and Consultation - standards; Sociology; Time Factors; Valuation; EQ-5D; Face-to-face; Preference elicitation; Online; Time trade-off
• ISSN: 0962-9343; 1573-2649
• DOI: 10.1007/s11136-020-02712-1

Objective
The aim of this study was to compare online, unsupervised and face-to-face (F2F), supervised valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states using composite time trade-off (cTTO) tasks.
Methods
The official EuroQol experimental design and valuation protocol for the EQ-5D-5L of 86 health states were implemented in interviewer-assisted, F2F and unsupervised, online studies. Validity of preferences was assessed using prevalence of inconsistent valuations and expected patterns of TTO values. Respondent task engagement was measured using number of trade-offs and time per task. Trading patterns such as better-than-dead only was compared between modes. Value sets were generated using linear regression with a random intercept (RILR). Value set characteristics such as range of scale and dimension ranking were evaluated between modes.
Results
Five hundred one online and 1,134 F2F respondents completed the surveys. Mean elicited TTO values were higher online than F2F when compared by health state severity. Compared to F2F, a larger proportion of online respondents did not assign the poorest EQ-5D-5L health state (i.e., 55555) the lowest TTO value ([Online] 41.3% [F2F] 12.2%) (
p
 < 0.001). A higher percentage of online cTTO tasks were completed in 3 trade-offs or fewer ([Online] 15.8% [F2F] 3.7%), (
p
 < 0.001). When modeled using the RILR, the F2F range of scale was larger than online ([Online] 0.600 [F2F] 1.307) and the respective dimension rankings differed.
Conclusions
Compared to F2F data, TTO tasks conducted online had more inconsistencies and decreased engagement, which contributed to compromised data quality. This study illustrates the challenges of conducting online valuation studies using the TTO approach.