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

Tessa Peasgood; Mackenzie Bourke; Nancy Devlin; Donna Rowen; Yaling Yang; Kim Dalziel

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115818

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

Soc Sci Med. 2023 Apr:323:115818. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115818. Epub 2023 Mar 8.

Authors

Tessa Peasgood¹, Mackenzie Bourke², Nancy Devlin², Donna Rowen³, Yaling Yang⁴, Kim Dalziel²

Affiliations

¹ Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy | Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: tessa.peasgood@unimelb.edu.au.
² Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy | Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
³ School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK.
⁴ Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, UK.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Composite time trade off (TTO); EQ-5D-5L; EuroQol valuation protocol (EQ-VT); Videoconference.

Publication types

Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

COVID-19*
Health Status*
Humans
Pandemics
Quality of Life
Surveys and Questionnaires