＂Stated Preference Theory (Conjoint Analysis) is the Best ...课件.pptVIP

Survey STATED PREFERENCE SCENARIOS Fractional Factorial Experimental Design Attributes and Levels taken from the Health Utilities Instrument - Mark 3 best – 3rd – worst 243 combinations of comparisons that were not dominant or dominated choices 25 x 10 choice sets each 61 x 4 choice sets each Cost of each choice = $100 / $50 / $0 精品 精品 精品 Stated Preference Methods Stated preference is not revealed preference All stated preference methods ask the subject to make hypothetical choices All stated preference methods require the subject (patient) to consider or imagine the value of health states they don’t actually experience 精品 Denominator of CEA Ratio [Cost(A) - Cost(B)] / [QALY(A) - QALY(B)] How are QALYs determined? Patient or subject survey of health states EQ-5D, HUI, QWB, SF-## Results converted into QOL-weighted time Uses someone’s utility weighting algorithm Utility translation imprecision is generally ignored 精品 Problems with QALYs Doesn’t accurately reflect individual utilities Implies that people have constant preference for healthy years Ignores risky behaviors Ignores life expectancy constraints Ignores alternative consumption opportunties Creates serious analytic problems in a CE ratio 精品 Feiller’s Theorem Probability Ellipses STOCHASTIC UNCERTAINTY / VARIABILITY 精品 Computing 95% CI around mean ratio is plagued with many problems ΔC ΔE Analyzing CEA Ratio Results 精品 Computing 95% CI around mean ratio is plagued with many problems CI can include undefined values ΔC / ΔE What if ΔE = 0? CI = (LL, ∞) U (∞, UL) ΔC ΔE Analyzing CEA Ratio Results 精品 Computing 95% CI around mean ratio is plagued with many problems CI can be undefined Analyzing CEA Ratio Results 精品 Computing 95% CI around mean ratio is plagued with many problems The same value for a CER can have 2 completely different meanings a1 = a2 but many prefer a2 b1 = b2 but in reality, b1 b2 ΔC ΔE b2 b1 a2 a1 Analyzing CEA Ratio Results 精品 Computing 95% CI around mean ratio is p