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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2017

Open Access 01-01-2017 | Research

Are preferences over health states informed?

Authors: M. Karimi, J. Brazier, S. Paisley

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The use of preference-elicitation tasks for valuing health states is well established, but little is known about whether these preferences are informed. Preferences may not be informed because individuals with little experience of ill health are asked to value health states. The use of uninformed preferences in cost-effectiveness can result in sub-optimal resource allocation. The aim of this study was to pilot a novel method to assess whether members of the public are informed about health states they value in preference-elicitation tasks.

Methods

The general public was said to be informed if the expectations of the public about the effect of ill health on people’s lives were in agreement with the experience of patients. Sixty-two members of the public provided their expectations of the consequences of ill health on five life domains (activities, enjoyment, independence, relationships, and avoiding being a burden). A secondary dataset was used to measure patient experience on those five consequences.

Results

There were differences between the expectations of the public and the experience of patients. For example, for all five life consequences the public underestimated the effects of problems in usual activities compared to problems in mobility. They also underestimated the effect of ‘anxiety or depression’ compared to physical problems on enjoyment of life and on the quality of personal relationships.

Conclusions

This proof-of-concept study showed that it is possible to test whether preferences are informed. This study should be replicated using a larger sample. The findings suggest that preferences over health states in this sample are not fully informed because the participants do not have accurate expectations about the consequences of ill health. These uninformed preferences may not be adequate for allocation of public resources, and research is needed into methods to make them better informed.
Literature
1.
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 358.
2.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 448.
3.
4.
Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Hausman DM, McPherson MS. Preference satisfaction and welfare economics. Econ Philos. 2009;25(1):1–25.CrossRef
6.
Harsanyi JC. Utilities, preferences, and substantive goods. Soc Choice Welf. 1997;14(1):129–45.CrossRef
7.
Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J. 2007;118(525):215–34.CrossRef
8.
Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Dolan P, Claxton K, McCabe C, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201–8.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Dolan P, Metcalfe R. Valuing health: a brief report on subjective well-being versus preferences. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(4):578–82.CrossRef
10.
Mukuria C, Brazier J. Valuing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D health states using subjective well-being: a secondary analysis of patient data. Soc Sci Med. 2013;77:97–105.CrossRefPubMed
11.
van der Pol M, Shiell A. Extrinsic goals and time tradeoff. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27(4):406–13.CrossRef
12.
Baker R, Robinson A. Responses to standard gambles: are preferences 'well constructed'? Health Econ. 2004;13(1):37–48.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Karimi M, Brazier J, Paisley S. How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation. Soc Sci Med. 2017;172:80–8.CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: what is the difference? Pharmacoeconomics. 2016.
16.
Osch Sv, Stiggelbout AM. The construction of standard gamble utilities. Health Econ. 2007;40(2007):31–40.
17.
Lancaster KJ. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ. 1966:132–57.
18.
Abellan-Perpinan JM, Pinto-Prades JL, Mendez-Martinez I, Badia-Llach X. Towards a better QALY model. Health Econ. 2006;15(7):665–76.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Ubel P, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(6):599–607.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Karimi M, Brazier J, Paisley S. The effect of reflection and deliberation on health state values. Health Econ Decis Sci Discus Pap. 2016;16.10.
22.
23.
NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London; 2013. Report No: 1846297419 Contract No.: June.
24.
Richardson J, Iezzi A, Maxwell A. Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments: MIC paper 1, background, questions, instruments. 2012.
25.
Richardson J, Khan MA, Iezzi A, Maxwell A. Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D Multiattribute utility instruments. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(3):276–91.CrossRef
26.
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (Sf-36). 1. Conceptual-framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30(6):473-483.
27.
Walters SJ. Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health-care evaluation a practical guide to analysis and interpretation. Chichester: Wiley; 2009.
28.
Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, Frijters P. How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? Econ J. 2004;114(497):641–59.CrossRef
29.
Ananth CV, Kleinbaum DG. Regression models for ordinal responses: a review of methods and applications. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26(6):1323–33.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Bender R, Grouven U. Ordinal logistic regression in medical research. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1997;31(5):546–51.PubMed
31.
Peterson B, Harrell FE. Partial proportional odds models for ordinal response variables. J R Stat Soc. 1990;39:2.
32.
Fox J, Weisberg S, Fox J. An R companion to applied regression. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications; 2011. xxii, x449.
33.
Lunt M. Prediction of ordinal outcomes when the association between predictors and outcome differs between outcome levels. Stat Med. 2005;24(9):1357–69.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Lall R, Campbell MJ, Walters SJ, Morgan K. A review of ordinal regression models applied on health-related quality of life assessments. Stat Methods Med Res. 2002;11(1):49–67.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Long JS, Freese J. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. 2nd ed. College Station, Texas: Stata Press; 2006.
36.
Smithson M, Verkuilen J. A better lemon squeezer? Maximum-likelihood regression with beta-distributed dependent variables. Psychol Methods. 2006;11(1):54–71.CrossRefPubMed
37.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2015.
38.
Yee TW, Wild CJ. Vector generalized additive models. J R Stat Soc Ser B-Methodol. 1996;58(3):481–93.
39.
Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern applied statistics with S. Fourth ed. New York: Springer; 2002.CrossRef
40.
Cribari-Neto F, Zeileis A. Beta Regression in R. J Stat Softw. 2010;34(2):1–24.CrossRef
41.
Cubi-Molla P, de Vries J, Devlin N. A study of the relationship between health and subjective well-being in Parkinson's disease patients. Value Health. 2014;17(4):372–9.CrossRefPubMed
42.
McTaggart-Cowan H, Tsuchiya A, O'Cathain A, Brazier J. Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(11):1904–12.CrossRefPubMed
43.
44.
Al-Janabi H, Flynn TN, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(1):167–76.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Wooldridge JM. Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. Fourth ed. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning; 2009. xxv, 881.
46.
Mulhern B, Longworth L, Brazier J, Rowen D, Bansback N, Devlin N, et al. Binary choice health state valuation and mode of administration: head-to-head comparison of online and CAPI. Value Health. 2013;16(1):104–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Knott RJ, Black N, Hollingsworth B, Lorgelly PK. Response-scale heterogeneity in the EQ-5D. Health Econ. 2016;26(3):387-94.
48.
49.
Trautmann ST, van de Kuilen G. Belief elicitation: a horse race among truth serums. Econ J. 2015;125(589):2116-35.
50.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The health utilities index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng Y-S, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA, Maxwell A. Validity and reliability of the assessment of quality of life (aqol)-8d multi-attribute utility instrument. Patient-Patient Cent Outcomes Res. 2014;7(1):85–96.CrossRef
54.
Office for National Statistics. Analysis of experimental subjective well-being data from the annual population survey, April to September 2011. 2012.
Metadata
Title
Are preferences over health states informed?
Authors
M. Karimi
J. Brazier
S. Paisley
Publication date
01-01-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0678-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

Functional evaluation for patients with lower extremity sarcoma: application of the Chinese version of Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scoring system

Research

Psychometric properties of morning joint stiffness duration and severity measures in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis

Research

The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care produces measurements along a single dimension: results from a Mokken analysis

Research

Psychometric evaluation of the Oswestry Disability Index in patients with chronic low back pain: factor and Mokken analyses

Research

Emotional distress and dysfunctional illness perception are associated with low mental and physical quality of life in Chinese breast cancer patients

Research

Health-related quality of life effects of enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an in-depth post hoc analysis of EQ-5D data from the PREVAIL trial