Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 6/2020

Open Access 01-06-2020

Whom should we ask? A systematic literature review of the arguments regarding the most accurate source of information for valuation of health states

Authors: Gert Helgesson, Olivia Ernstsson, Mimmi Åström, Kristina Burström

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 6/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To determine and critically evaluate the arguments in the published literature regarding the most accurate source of information for valuation of health states: values based on experienced health states (patient values) or values based on described health states (general public values).
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Nord, E. (1999). Cost-value analysis in health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
2.
Brazier, J., Akehurst, R., Brennan, A., et al. (2005). Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Applied Health Economics and Health Policy,4(4), 201–208.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Dolan, P. (2008). Developing methods that really do value the ‘Q’ in the QALY. Health Economics, Policy and Law,3(1), 69–77.CrossRef
4.
Dolan, P., & Kahneman, D. (2008). Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. The Economic Journal,118, 215–234.CrossRef
5.
Dolan, P. (2009). NICE should value real experiences over hypothetical opinions. Nature,462(7269), 35.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Drummond, M., Brixner, D., Gold, M., et al. (2009). Toward a consensus on the QALY. Value in Health,12(Suppl 1), s31–35.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
Hausman, D. M. (2015). Valuing health. Well-being, freedom, and suffering. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Brazier, J., Rowen, D., Karimi, M., et al. (2018). Experienced-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: Why and how to do it. The European Journal of Health Economics,19, 881–891.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Saloman, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2016). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
11.
McPherson, K., Myers, J., Taylor, W. J., McNaughton, H. K., & Weatherall, M. (2004). Self-valuation and societal valuations of health state differ with disease severity in chronic and disabling conditions. Medical Care,42(11), 1143–1151.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Mann, R., Brazier, J., & Tsuchiya, A. (2009). A comparison of patient and general population weightings of the EQ-5D dimensions. Health Economics,18(3), 363–372.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Burström, K., Johannesson, M., & Diderichsen, F. (2006). A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy,76, 359–370.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Krabbe, P. F. M., Tromp, N., Ruers, T. J. M., & van Riel, P. L. C. M. (2011). Are patients’ judgements of health status really different from the general population? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,9, 31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
McNamee, P. (2007). What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values. Health Policy,84, 321–331.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Versteegh, M. M., & Brouwer, W. B. F. (2016). Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines. Social Science and Medicine,165, 66–74.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Burström, K., Sun, S., Gerdtham, U. G., et al. (2014). Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. Quality of Life Research,23, 431–442.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Cubi-Molla, P., Shah, K., & Burström, K. (2018). Experience-based values: A framework for classifying different types of experience in health valuation research. Patient,11(3), 253–270.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Leidl, R., & Reitmeir, P. (2011). A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states Development and testing for the German population. PharmacoEconomics,29(6), 521–534.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Sun, S., Chen, J., Kind, P., et al. (2015). Experience-based VAS values for EQ-5D-3L health states in a national general population health survey in China. Quality of Life Research,24, 693–703.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Leidl, R., & Reitmeir, P. (2017). An experience-based value set for the EQ-5D-5L in Germany. Value in Health,20, 1150–1156.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (Eds.). (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Kind, P. (2009). Valuing EQ-5D health states—A VAStly simpler solution? In J. Busschbach, R. Rabin, F. de Charro (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th scientific plenary meeting of the EuroQol Group (pp. 319–337). Kijkduin-The Hague, The Netherlands Rotterdam: EuroQol Group Executive Office. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
24.
Rand-Hendriksen, K., Augestad, L. A., Kristiansen, I. S., & Stavem, K. (2012). Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: Relative weights of the five dimensions. Quality of Life Research,21, 1005–1012.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Leidl, R., Reitmeir, P., König, H. H., & Stark, R. (2012). The performance of a value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Value in Health,15(1), 151–157.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Wolff, J., Edwards, S., Richmond, S., Orr, S., & Rees, G. (2012). Evaluating interventions in health: A reconciliatory approach. Bioethics,26(9), 455–463.PubMedCrossRef
27.
28.
29.
30.
Brouwer, W. B. F., Culyer, A. J., van Exel, N. J. A., & Rutten, F. F. H. (2008). Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. Journal of Health Economics,27, 325–338.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health,23, 334–340.CrossRef
32.
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today,24(2), 105–112.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Ubel, P. A., Nord, E., Gold, M., Menzel, P., Prades, J. L., & Richardson, J. (2000). Improving value measurement in cost-effectiveness analysis. Medical Care,38(9), 892–901.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Ogorevc, M., Murovec, N., Fernandez, N. B., & Rupel, V. P. (2017). Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states. Health Policy,123, 166–172.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Rowen, D., Zouraq, I. A., Chevrou-Severac, H., & van Hout, B. (2017). International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics,35(Suppl 1), 11–19.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Ubel, P. A., Loewenstein, G., & Jepson, C. (2003). Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research,12, 599–607.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Stamuli, E. (2011). Health outcomes in economic evaluation: who should value health? British Medical Bulletin,97, 197–210.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Lenert, L. A., Treadwell, J. R., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Associations between health status and utilities implications for policy. Medical Care,37(5), 479–489.PubMedCrossRef
39.
de Wit, G. A., Busschbach, J. J. V., & de Charro, F. T. H. (2000). Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Economics,9, 109–126.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Polsky, D., Willke, R. J., Scott, K., Schulman, K. A., & Glick, H. A. (2001). A comparison of scoring weights for the EUROQOL derived from patients and the general public. Health Economics,10, 27–37.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Happich, M., & von Lengerke, T. (2005). Valuing the health state ‘tinnitus’: differences between patients and the general public. Hearing Research,207, 50–58.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Garau, M., Shah, K. K., Mason, A. R., et al. (2011). Using QALYs in cancer A review of the methodological limitations. Pharmacoeconomics,29(8), 673–685.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Ratcliffe, J., Brazier, J., Palfreyman, S., & Michaels, J. (2007). A comparison of patient and population values for health states in varicose veins patients. Health Economics,16, 395–405.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Gandjour, A. (2010). Theoretical foundation of patient v population preferences in calculating QALYs. Medical Decision Making,30, 57–63.CrossRef
45.
Menzel, P., Dolan, P., Richardson, J., & Olsen, J. A. (2002). The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: A preliminary normative analysis. Social Science and Medicine,55, 2149–2158.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Putter, H., Snoek, G. J., et al. (2012). The influence of time and adaptation on health state valuations in patients with spinal cord injury. Medical Decision Making,32, 805–814.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Myers, J. A., McPherson, K. M., Taylor, W. J., Weatherall, M., & McNaughton, H. K. (2003). Duration of condition is unrelated to health-state valuation on the EuroQol. Clinical Rehabilitation,17, 209–215.PubMedCrossRef
48.
McTaggart-Cowan, H. M., O’Cathain, A., Tsuchiya, A., & Brazier, J. E. (2012). Using mixed methods research to explore the effect of an adaptation exercise on general population valuations of health states. Quality of Life Research,21, 465–473.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Daniels, N. (1985). Just health care. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
50.
Daniels, N. (2007). Just health. Meeting health needs fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
51.
Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
52.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
53.
Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. (Eds.). (1993). The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Metadata
Title
Whom should we ask? A systematic literature review of the arguments regarding the most accurate source of information for valuation of health states
Authors
Gert Helgesson
Olivia Ernstsson
Mimmi Åström
Kristina Burström
Publication date
01-06-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02426-4

Other articles of this Issue 6/2020

Quality of Life Research 6/2020 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Mixed methods analysis of Health-Related Quality of Life in ambulant individuals affected with RYR1-related myopathies pre-post-N-acetylcysteine therapy

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life among transgender and gender expansive youth at a rural gender wellness clinic

OriginalPaper

Social inequalities in health-related quality of life among people aging with HIV/AIDS: the role of comorbidities and disease severity

OriginalPaper

Qualitative study of patients with venous malformations: symptom experiences and content validity of patient-reported outcome measures

OriginalPaper

Mild cognitive impairment and quality of life in the oldest old: a closer look

OriginalPaper

Quality of life in people with dementia living in nursing homes: validation of an eight-item version of the QUALIDEM for intensive longitudinal assessment