Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 6, 2025

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states
Tessa Peasgood1, Mackenzie Bourke1, Nancy Devlin1
1Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy | Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia.
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.
More Related Videos
11:21Methodology for Establishing a Community-Wide Life Laboratory for Capturing Unobtrusive and Continuous Remote Activity and Health Data
Published on: July 27, 2018
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Models of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention II
The agent-host-environment model states that disease results...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...