Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 5/2011

01-10-2011 | Original Article

Utility Assessment of Body Contouring After Massive Weight Loss

Authors: Hani Sinno, Stephanie Thibaudeau, Youssef Tahiri, Elise Mok, George Christodoulou, Lucie Lessard, Bruce Williams, Samuel J. Lin

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 5/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The number of surgical procedures performed for obesity and massive weight loss (MWL) is increasing. The authors set out to quantify the health state utility assessment of living with MWL that can occur after such procedures.

Methods

Utility assessments using the visual analog scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and standard gamble (SG) were used to obtain utilities for MWL, monocular blindness, and binocular blindness from a sample of the general population and medical students.

Results

All the measures for MWL of the 100 volunteers (VAS, 0.79 ± 0.13; TTO, 0.89 ± 0.12; SG, 0.89 ± 0.15) were significantly different (p < 0.005) from the corresponding measures for monocular blindness (0.63 ± 0.18, 0.84 ± 0.17, and 0.86 ± 0.16, respectively) and binocular blindness (0.31 ± 0.17, 0.63 ± 0.28, and 0.66 ± 0.27, respectively) except for the SG utility measure comparing monocular blindness with MWL. Age was inversely proportional to the TTO utility scores for MWL (p < 0.05). Caucasian race and medical education were independent predictors of SG utility scores (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

In a sample of the general population and medical students, SG utility assessments for MWL were comparable with those for monocular blindness. Utility assessment of living with MWL varied with race (VAS and SG) and education (SG). The sample population, if faced with MWL, would consent to undergo a procedure such as body contouring with an 11% chance of death and be willing to trade 4 years of their life.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC (1984) Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 4:315–329PubMedCrossRef Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC (1984) Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 4:315–329PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Torrance GW, Feeny D (1989) Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 5:559–575PubMedCrossRef Torrance GW, Feeny D (1989) Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 5:559–575PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Chang WT, Collins ED, Kerrigan CL (2001) An Internet-based utility assessment of breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:370–377PubMedCrossRef Chang WT, Collins ED, Kerrigan CL (2001) An Internet-based utility assessment of breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:370–377PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Kerrigan CL, Collins ED, Kneeland TS et al (2000) Measuring health state preferences in women with breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 106:280–288PubMedCrossRef Kerrigan CL, Collins ED, Kneeland TS et al (2000) Measuring health state preferences in women with breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 106:280–288PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference van Osch SM, Stiggelbout AM (2008) The construction of standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 17:31–40PubMedCrossRef van Osch SM, Stiggelbout AM (2008) The construction of standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 17:31–40PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Torrance GW (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 5:1–30PubMedCrossRef Torrance GW (1986) Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 5:1–30PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Stevens KJ, McCabe CJ, Brazier JE (2006) Mapping between visual analogue scale and standard gamble data: results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey. Health Econ 15:527–533PubMedCrossRef Stevens KJ, McCabe CJ, Brazier JE (2006) Mapping between visual analogue scale and standard gamble data: results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey. Health Econ 15:527–533PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Sinno HH, Thibaudeau S, Duggal A, Lessard L (2010) Utility scores for facial disfigurement requiring facial transplantation [outcomes article]. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(2):443–449PubMedCrossRef Sinno HH, Thibaudeau S, Duggal A, Lessard L (2010) Utility scores for facial disfigurement requiring facial transplantation [outcomes article]. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(2):443–449PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Nord E (1991) EuroQol: health-related quality-of-life measurement: valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy 18:25–36PubMedCrossRef Nord E (1991) EuroQol: health-related quality-of-life measurement: valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy 18:25–36PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Nease RF Jr, Tsai R, Hynes LM, Littenberg B (1996) Automated utility assessment of global health. Qual Life Res 5:175–182PubMedCrossRef Nease RF Jr, Tsai R, Hynes LM, Littenberg B (1996) Automated utility assessment of global health. Qual Life Res 5:175–182PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Lenert LA, Morss S, Goldstein MK et al (1997) Measurement of the validity of utility elicitations performed by computerized interview. Med Care 35:915–920PubMedCrossRef Lenert LA, Morss S, Goldstein MK et al (1997) Measurement of the validity of utility elicitations performed by computerized interview. Med Care 35:915–920PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Picot J, Jones J, Colquitt JL, Gospodarevskaya E, Loveman E, Baxter L, Clegg AJ (2009) The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 13(41):1–190, 215–357, iii–iv Picot J, Jones J, Colquitt JL, Gospodarevskaya E, Loveman E, Baxter L, Clegg AJ (2009) The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 13(41):1–190, 215–357, iii–iv
13.
go back to reference Smith KJ, Roberts MS (2005) Quality-of-life utility values for erectile function and sildenafil treatment. Clin Drug Investig 25:99–105PubMedCrossRef Smith KJ, Roberts MS (2005) Quality-of-life utility values for erectile function and sildenafil treatment. Clin Drug Investig 25:99–105PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB (1996) Recommendations of the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276:1253PubMedCrossRef Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB (1996) Recommendations of the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 276:1253PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Torrance GW (1982) Preferences for health states: a review of measurement methods. Mead Johnson Symp Perinat Dev Med 20:37–45 Torrance GW (1982) Preferences for health states: a review of measurement methods. Mead Johnson Symp Perinat Dev Med 20:37–45
16.
go back to reference Torrence GW (1997) Preferences of health outcomes and cost-utility analysis. Am J Manag Care 3:S8–S20 Torrence GW (1997) Preferences of health outcomes and cost-utility analysis. Am J Manag Care 3:S8–S20
17.
go back to reference Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R et al (1984) Describing health states: methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care 22:543–552PubMedCrossRef Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R et al (1984) Describing health states: methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care 22:543–552PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Utility Assessment of Body Contouring After Massive Weight Loss
Authors
Hani Sinno
Stephanie Thibaudeau
Youssef Tahiri
Elise Mok
George Christodoulou
Lucie Lessard
Bruce Williams
Samuel J. Lin
Publication date
01-10-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 5/2011
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9676-1

Other articles of this Issue 5/2011

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 5/2011 Go to the issue