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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2005

01-12-2005 | Current Opinion

Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states?

Authors: Professor John Brazier, Ron Akehurst, Alan Brennan, Paul Dolan, Karl Claxton, Chris McCabe, Mark Sculpher, Aki Tsuchyia

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 4/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

Currently, health state values are usually obtained from members of the general public trying to imagine what the state would be like rather than by patients who are actually in the various states of health. Valuations of a health state by patients tend to vary from those of the general population, and this seems to be due to a range of factors including errors in the descriptive system, adaptation to the state and changes in internal standards. The question of whose values are used in cost-effectiveness analysis is ultimately a normative one, but the decision should be informed by evidence on the reasons for the differences. There is a case for obtaining better informed general population preferences by providing more information on what it is like for patients (including the process of adaptation).
Literature
1.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2003
2.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996
3.
Torrance G, Blaker D, Detsky A, et al. Canadian guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canadian Collaborative Workshop for Pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9(6): 535–59PubMedCrossRef
4.
Dolan P. Modelling valuation for EuroQOL health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 351–63CrossRef
5.
Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility function the Health Utility Index mark 3 system. Med Care 2002; 40(2): 113–28PubMedCrossRef
6.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation a preference-based single index measure for health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21(2): 271–92PubMedCrossRef
7.
Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1997
8.
Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31: 697–704PubMedCrossRef
9.
Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences: II. Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 459–71PubMedCrossRef
10.
Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman ZK, et al. Whose values for decision making? Med Decis Making 1990; 10: 58–67PubMedCrossRef
11.
Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, et al. The measurement of patients’ values in medicine. Med Decis Making 1982; 2: 449–62PubMedCrossRef
12.
Hurst NP, Jobanputra P, Hunter M, et al. Validity of Euroqol: a generic health status instrument: in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Economic and Health Outcomes Research Group. Br J Rheumatol 1994; 33: 655–62PubMedCrossRef
13.
Dolan P, Roberts J. To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents? Soc Sci Med 1999; 54: 919–29CrossRef
14.
Shaw J, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005; 43(3): 203–20PubMedCrossRef
15.
Dolan P. The effect of age on health state valuations. J Health Serv Res Policy 2000; 5: 17–21PubMed
16.
Insinga RP, Fryback DG. Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL. Qual Life Res 2003 Sep; 12(6): 611–9PubMedCrossRef
17.
Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998; 316(7133): 736–41PubMedCrossRef
18.
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: 599–607PubMedCrossRef
19.
Spranger AG, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1507–15CrossRef
20.
Kahneman D, Snell J. Predicting utility. In: Hogarth RAM, editor. Insights in decision making. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press, 1990: 295–310
21.
Redelmeier DA, Rozin P, Kahneman D. Understanding patients’ decisions: cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA 1993; 270(1): 72–6PubMedCrossRef
22.
Menzel P, Dolan O, Richardson J, et al. The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Soc Sci Med 2002; 55(12): 2149–58PubMedCrossRef
23.
Kahneman D. Experienced utility and objective happiness: a moment based approach. In: Kahneman D, Tversky A, editors. Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000: 673–93
24.
25.
Culyer AJ. Commodities, characteristics of commodities, characteristics of people, utilities and quality of life. In: Baldwin S, Godfrey C, Propper C, editors. The quality of life: perspectives and policies. London: Routledge, 1989: 9–27
26.
Culyer AJ. The normative economics of health care finance and provision. Ox Rev Econ Policy 1989; 5(1): 34–58CrossRef
27.
28.
Gafni A. Willingness to pay as a measure of benefits: relevant questions in the context of public decision making about health care programmes. Med Care 1991; 29: 1246–52PubMedCrossRef
29.
Litva A, Coast J, Donovan J, et al. The public is too subjective: public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Soc Sci Med 2002; 54: 1825–37PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Lenert LA, Treadwell JR, Schwartz EC. Associations between health status and utilities: implications for policy. Med Care 2001;37(5): 470–89
32.
Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979; 47: 263–91CrossRef
33.
Ariely D, Carmon Z. Gestalt characteristics of experiences: the defining features of summarized events. J Behav Decis Making 2000; 13: 191–201CrossRef
34.
Kahneman D, Fredrickson BL, Schreiber CA, et al. When more pain is preferred to less: adding a better end. Psychol Sci 1993; 4: 401–5CrossRef
35.
Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30PubMedCrossRef
36.
Brazier J, Green C, McCabe C, et al. A review of VAS in economic evaluation. J Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2003; 3: 293–302CrossRef
37.
Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson DG, et al. The relationship between health state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Med Decis Making 1999; 19: 128–40PubMedCrossRef
38.
Mann R. A comparison of patient and general population values for EQ5D health states. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2005
39.
Mukuria CW. Exploring the relationship between health and happiness: a comparison across studies of different conditions using the SF-36 and EQ-5D. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2005
40.
41.
Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5(5): 1–186PubMed
42.
Slovic P. The construction of preferences. Am Psychol 1995; 50(5): 364–71CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states?
Authors
Professor John Brazier
Ron Akehurst
Alan Brennan
Paul Dolan
Karl Claxton
Chris McCabe
Mark Sculpher
Aki Tsuchyia
Publication date
01-12-2005
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 4/2005
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00148365-200504040-00002

Other articles of this Issue 4/2005

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4/2005 Go to the issue

Review Article

The cost effectiveness of universal versus selective newborn screening for sickle cell disease in the US and the UK

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgement

Original Research Article

Determining priority for liver transplantation

Leading Article

How to present the business case for healthcare quality to employers

Original Research Article

The incremental cost effectiveness of withdrawing pulmonary artery catheters from routine use in critical care

Review Article

What value health?