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 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Leg Pain | Research

Do socio-demographic characteristics and/or health status explain the magnitude of differences between patient and general public utility values? A chronic low back pain patients case study

Authors: J. M. van Dongen, M. L. van Hooff, A. P. Finch, M. W. van Tulder, J. E. Bosmans, R. W. J. G. Ostelo, M. de Kleuver

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Utility values can be obtained from different respondent groups, including patients and members of the general public. Evidence suggests that patient values are typically higher than general public values. This study explores whether the magnitude of disagreement between both values can be explained by socio-demographic characteristics and/or health status.

Methods

Data of 5037 chronic low back pain patients were used. Self-reported EQ-VAS was employed as a proxy of patients’ preference for their own health state. General public values for the patients’ EQ-5D-3L health states were obtained using the Dutch VAS-based tariff. The difference between patient and general public values was assessed using a paired t-test. Subsequently, this difference was used as a dependent variable and regressed upon dummy variables of socio-demographic and health status characteristics. Coefficients represented age, gender, education level, social support, back pain intensity, leg pain intensity, functional status, comorbidities, catastrophizing, and treatment expectations.

Results

Patient values were higher than general public values (0.069; 95%CI:0.063–0.076). The magnitude of disagreement between both values was associated with age, gender, education level, social support, functional status, and comorbidities, but not with back pain intensity, leg pain intensity, catastrophizing, and treatment expectations.

Conclusions

Patients were found to value their own health status higher than members of the general public. The magnitude of disagreement between both values was found to differ by various socio-demographic and/or health status characteristics. This suggest that patient characteristics account for a relevant fraction of the identified disagreements between patient and general public values, and that mechanisms thought to be responsible for these disagreements, such as adaptation and response shift, have a differential impact across patient sub-groups.
Literature
1.
Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;Suppl 1:S5–9.CrossRef
2.
Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsychiya A. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.CrossRef
3.
Rowen D, Azzabi Zouraq I, Chevrou-Severac H, van Hout B. International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(Suppl 1):11–9.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Rencz F, Gulácsi L, Drummond M, Golicki D, Prevolnik Rupel V, Simon J, et al. EQ-5D in central and Eastern Europe: 2000-2015. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(11):2693–710.PubMedCrossRef
5.
General guidelines for economic evaluations from the pharmaceutical benefits board. Stockholm: Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (TLV); 2003.
6.
Ubel PA, 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.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Versteegh MM, Brouwer WBF. Patient and general public preferences for health states: a call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc Sci Med. 2016;165:66–74.PubMedCrossRef
8.
9.
Menzel P, Dolan P, Richardson J, Olsen JA. The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(12):2149–58.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201–8.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Gandjour A. Theoretical foundation of patient v. population preferences in calculating QALYs. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(4):E57–63.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96(1):5–21.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Brazier J, Rowen D, Karimi M, Peasgood T, Tsuchiya A, Ratcliffe J. Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it. Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(6):881–91.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Hajdu K, Brodszky V, Ruzsa G, Tamási B, Gulácsi L, Péntek M, et al. Patient-assigned health utility values for controlled and uncontrolled pemphigus vulgaris and foliaceus. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol: Stalmeier PFM. 2019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jdv.​15765 [Epub ahead of print].
15.
Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM. Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health. 2010;13(2):306–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Krahn M, Ritvo P, Irvine J, et al. Patient and community preferences for outcomes in prostate cancer: implications for clinical policy. Med Care. 2003;41:153–64.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Noel CW, Lee DJ, Kong Q, et al. Comparison of health state utility measures in patients with head and neck cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol–Head Neck Surg. 2015;141(8):696–703.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Burström K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy. 2006;76(3):359–70.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Lloyd A, Doyle S, Dewilde S, Turk F. Preferences and utilities for the symptoms of moderate to severe allergic asthma. Eur J Health Econ. 2008;9(3):275–84.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Pyne JM, Fortney JC, Tripathi S, Feeny D, Ubel P, Brazier J. How bad is depression? Preference score estimates from depressed patients and the general population. Health Serv Res. 2009;44(4):1406–23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Stolk EA, Busschbach JJ. Are patients and the general public like-minded about the effect of erectile dysfunction on quality of life? Urology. 2003;61(4):810–5.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Mann R, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ-5D dimensions. Health Econ. 2009;18(3):363–72.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Insinga RP, Fryback DG. Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(6):611–9.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Melnikow J. Do personal and societal preferences differ by socio-demographic group? Health Econ. 2007;16(3):319–25.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Van Dongen J, Bekkering GE, van Tulder M, Ostelo R. Patient versus general population health state valuations: a case study of non-specific low back pain. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(6):1627–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
van Hooff ML, van Loon J, van Limbeek J, de Kleuver M. The Nijmegen decision tool for chronic low back pain. Development of a clinical decision tool for secondary or tertiary spine care specialists. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e104226.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
van Dongen JM, van Hooff ML, Spruit M, de Kleuver M, Ostelo RW. Which patient-reported factors predict referral to spinal surgery? A cohort study among 4987 chronic low back pain patients. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(11):2782–88.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. Centre for health economics. York: University of; 1994.
29.
30.
Lamers LM, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, Busschbach JJ. Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(2):173–81.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Chiarotto A, Deyo RA, Terwee CB, et al. Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(6):1127–42.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Janowski K, Steuden S, Pietrzak A, et al. Social support and adaptation to the disease in men and women with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2012;304(6):421–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Huang CY, Sousa VD, Tsai CC, Hwang MY. Social support and adaptation of Taiwanese adults with mental illness. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(13):1795–802.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Livneh H, Martz E. Coping strategies and resources as predictors of psychosocial adaptation among people with spinal cord injury. Rehabil Psychol. 2014;59(3):329.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Sprangers MA, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(11):1507–15.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Andrykowski MA, Donovan KA, Jacobsen PB. Magnitude and correlates of response shift in fatigue ratings in women undergoing adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009;37(3):341–51.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Martz E, Livneh H, Priebe M, Wuermser LA, Ottomanelli L. Predictors of psychosocial adaptation among people with spinal cord injury or disorder. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(6):1182–92.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine. 2000;25(22):2940–52 discussion 2952.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Soer R, Reneman MF, Speijer BLGN, Coppes MH, Vroomen PCAJ. Clinimetric properties of the EuroQol-5D in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine J. 2012;12(11):1035–9.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Wilson R, Hansen P, Langley J, Derrett S. A comparison of injured patient and general population valuations of EQ-5D health states for New Zealand. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Gries KS, Regier DA, Ramsey SD, Patrick DL. Utility estimates of disease-specific health states in prostate cancer from three different perspectives. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(3):375–84.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Gandhi M, Thumboo J, Luo N, Wee H-L, Cheung Y-B. Do chronic disease patients value generic health states differently from individuals with no chronic disease? A case of a multicultural Asian population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. PharmacoEconomics. 2000;17(2):151–65.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Cubi-Molla P, Shah K, Garside J, Herdman M, Devlin N. A note on the relationship between age and health-related quality of life assessment. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(5):1201–5.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Burström K, Sun S, Gerdtham U, Hendriksson M, Johannesson M, Levin L, et al. Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):431–44.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Feng Y, Parkin D, Devlin NJ. Assessing the performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs programme. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:977–89.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Do socio-demographic characteristics and/or health status explain the magnitude of differences between patient and general public utility values? A chronic low back pain patients case study
Authors
J. M. van Dongen
M. L. van Hooff
A. P. Finch
M. W. van Tulder
J. E. Bosmans
R. W. J. G. Ostelo
M. de Kleuver
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1240-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research

The impact of occupation-based problem-solving strategies training in women with breast cancer

Research

Survey of the effects of internet usage on the happiness of Japanese university students

Research

Idelalisib addition has neutral to beneficial effects on quality of life in bendamustine/rituximab-treated patients: results of a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial

Research

Psychometric evaluation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) with Chinese University Students

Short report

A comparison of nurses’ and physicians’ perception of cancer treatment burden based on reported adverse events

Research

Psychometric properties of the Epworth sleepiness scale in Ethiopian university students