Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Mar;23(2):319-327.
doi: 10.1007/s40258-024-00929-6. Epub 2024 Dec 6.

Assessing the Direct Impact of Death on Discrete Choice Experiment Utilities

Hossein Ameri  1   2 , Thomas G Poder  3   4
Affiliations

Assessing the Direct Impact of Death on Discrete Choice Experiment Utilities

Hossein Ameri et al. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2025 Mar.

Abstract

Background: The dead state can affect the value sets derived from discrete choice experiments (DCEs). Our aim was to empirically assess the direct impact of the immediate death state on health utilities using discrete choice experiment with time (DCETTO).

Methods: A sample of the general population in Quebec, Canada, completed two approaches: DCETTO followed by a best-worst scaling with time (BWSTTO) (hereafter referred to as DCEBWS), versus DCETTO followed by the dominated option and the immediate death state (hereafter referred to as DCEDOD), both designed with the SF-6Dv2. In DCEBWS, all participants first completed 10 DCETTO choices (i.e., option A vs B), followed by 3 BWSTTO. In DCEDOD, the same participants first completed the same 10 DCETTO choices, followed by a repeated choice between the dominated option (i.e., A or B) and the immediate death state. A conditional logit model was used to estimate value sets. The performance of models was assessed using goodness of fit using Bayesian information criterion, parameters' logical consistency, and levels' significance. The direct impact of the death state on DCE latent utilities was evaluated by examining the magnitude of coefficients, assessing the agreement among the value sets estimated by DCETTO with DCEBWS and with DCEDOD using Bland-Altman plots, the proportion of worst-than-dead (WTD) health states, and analyzing the range of estimated values.

Results: From 398 participants, a total of 348 participants were included for final analysis. The number of parameters with illogical consistency and non-significant coefficients was lower in DCEBWS. The observed consistency in the relative importance of dimensions across all approaches suggests a stable and reliable ranking. The utility range for DCEDOD (- 0.921 to 1) was narrower than for DCETTO (- 1.578 to 1) and DCEBWS (- 1.150 to 1). The DCEDOD estimated a lower percentage of WTD health states (20.01 %) compared to DCETTO (47.19 %) and DCEBWS (33.73 %). The agreement between DCETTO and DCEBWS was slightly stronger than between DCETTO and DCEDOD, and the mean utility values were higher in DCEDOD than in DCEBWS.

Conclusions: The inclusion of the immediate death state directly within DCE increased utility values. This increase was higher when the immediate death was included in a sequence within a DCETTO (i.e., DCEDOD) than when it was included in a continuum of DCETTO (i.e., DCEBWS). The use of DCEDOD was potentially better suited to incorporate the dead state into a DCE.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Funding: This study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Knowledge Development Grants Program 2015–2017, file number 430-2015-00712. The CIRANO and the Fondation de l’IUSMM also funded a post-doctoral scholarship for the analysis of the data. Conflicts of interest: Thomas G. Poder is an editorial board member of Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. He was not involved in the selection of peer reviewers for the manuscript nor any of the subsequent editorial decisions. Ethics approval: The study was approved by an institutional ethics committee, with reference number #2016–1350, from the Comité d’éthique de la recherche of the CIUSSS de l'Estrie–CHUS. Consent to participate: Informed consent was obtained from all respondents. Consent for publication: Informed consent was obtained from all respondents. Availability of data and material: All data of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Code availability: Not applicable. Authors' contributions: TGP conceptualized this study. TGP and HA analyzed and interpreted the data, as well as wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors revised the manuscript critically and approved the final version.

References

    1. NICE. Technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors on making a submission to a technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2001. https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/ni... . Accessed 1 Nov 2024.
    1. CADTH. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006. https://www.cda-amc.ca/guidelines-economic-evaluation-health-technologie... .
    1. Brooks R, Group E. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Saloman J, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.

LinkOut - more resources