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

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 difference 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 participant 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.

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

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 difference 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 participant 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.

Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics: Literature review and novel conceptual framework.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination provides significant health gains to individuals and society and can potentially improve health equity, healthcare systems and national economies. Policy decisions, however, are rarely informed by comprehensive economic evaluations (EE) including vaccination's wide-ranging value. The objective of this analysis was to focus on health technology assessment systems to identify relevant value concepts in order to improve current EE of non-pandemic vaccines. METHODS: Following a literature review, a novel Value of Vaccination (VoV) framework was developed with experts in vaccine EE from developed countries with established health technology assessment systems. RESULTS: Forty-four studies presenting value frameworks or concepts applicable to vaccination were included. Eighteen unique value concepts relevant to EE were identified and defined. These were categorised within the VoV framework using three dimensions, moving from a narrow payer perspective to a more expansive and societal perspective. The dimensions were: (I) conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., health gains in vaccinees, direct medical costs); (II) conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., indirect health/economic gains to caregivers/households, productivity in vaccinees); and (III) novel societal concepts (e.g., financial risk protection, peace of mind, societal health gains, healthcare systems security, political stability, social equity and macroeconomic gains). While good quality evidence and methods are available to support concepts in Dimensions I and II, further work is needed to generate the required evidence for vaccination impact on Dimension III concepts. CONCLUSIONS: The devastating effect on nations of the COVID-19 pandemic has helped to highlight the potential far-reaching benefits that many vaccination programmes can offer. This VoV framework is particularly relevant to policy decisions considering EE, and the potential future expansion of non-pandemic vaccination value considerations. The framework helps to understand and compare current value considerations across countries and payer versus societal perspectives. It provides decision-makers with a transparent and logical path to broaden consideration of VoV in EE.

Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics: Country analysis and priority value concepts.

BACKGROUND: A value of vaccination framework for economic evaluation (EE) identified unique value concepts for the broad benefits vaccination provides to individuals, society, healthcare systems and national economies. The objectives of this paper were to work with experts in developed countries to objectively identify three priority concepts to extend current EE. METHODS: The previously developed classification of value concepts in vaccination distinguished 18 concepts, categorised as conventional payer and societal perspective concepts and novel broader societal concepts. Their inclusion in current EE guidelines was assessed. Experts identified eight criteria relevant to decision-making and measurement feasibility, which were weighted and used to score each concept. The relative ranking of concepts by importance and the gaps in guidelines were used to identify three priority concepts on which to focus immediate efforts to extend EE. RESULTS: The EE guidelines review highlighted differences across countries and between guidelines and practice. Conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., individual and societal health gains and medical costs) were generally included, while gaps were evident for conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., family/caregiver health and economic gains). Few novel broader societal benefits were considered, and only in ad hoc cases. The top-three concepts for near-term consideration: macroeconomic gains (e.g., benefiting the economy, tourism), social equity and ethics (e.g., equal distribution of health outcomes, reduced health/financial equity gaps) and health systems strengthening, resilience and security (e.g., efficiency gains, reduced disruption, increased capacity). CONCLUSIONS: Gaps, inconsistencies and limited assessment of vaccination value in EE can lead to differences in policy and vaccination access. The three priority concepts identified provide a feasible approach for capturing VoV more broadly in the near-term. Robust methods for measuring and valuing these concepts in future assessments will help strengthen the evidence used to inform decisions, improving access to vaccines that are demonstrably good value for money from society's point of view.