Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2011

Open Access 01-12-2011 | Research

The effect of time of onset on community preferences for health states: an exploratory study

Author: Eve Wittenberg

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Health state descriptions used to describe hypothetical scenarios in community-perspective utility surveys commonly omit detail on the time of onset of a condition, despite our knowledge that among patients who have a condition, experience affects the value assigned to that condition. The debate regarding whose values to use in cost utility analysis is based in part on this observed difference between values depending on the perspective from which they are measured. This research explores the effect on community preferences for hypothetical health states of including the time of onset of a health condition in the health state description, to investigate whether this information induces community respondents to provide values closer to those of patients with experience with a condition. The goal of the research is to bridge the gap between patient and community preferences.

Methods

A survey of community-perspective preferences for hypothetical health states was conducted among a convenience sample of healthy adults recruited from a hospital consortium's research volunteer pool. Standard gambles for three hypothetical health states of varying severity were compared across three frames describing time of onset: six months prior onset, current onset, and no onset specified in the description. Results were compared within health state across times of onset, controlling for respondent characteristics known to affect utility scores. Sub-analyses were conducted to confirm results on values meeting inclusion criteria indicating a minimum level of understanding and compliance with the valuation task.

Results

Standard gamble scores from 368 completed surveys were not significantly different across times of onset described in the health state descriptions regardless of health condition severity and controlling for respondent characteristics. Similar results were found in the subset of 292 responses that excluded illogical and invariant responses.

Conclusions

The inclusion of information on the time of onset of a health condition in community-perspective utility survey health state descriptions may not be salient to or may not induce expression of preferences related to disease onset among respondents. Further research is required to understand community preferences regarding condition onset, and how such information might be integrated into health state descriptions to optimize the validity of utility data. Improved understanding of how the design and presentation of health state descriptions affect responses will be useful to eliciting valid preferences for incorporation into decision making.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine: Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies: Washington, DC; 2009. Institute of Medicine: Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies: Washington, DC; 2009.
2.
go back to reference Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, et al.: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, et al.: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
3.
go back to reference von Neumann J, Morgenstern O: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1947. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1947.
4.
go back to reference Miller W, Robinson L, Lawrence R, eds: Valuing Health for Regulatory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC; 2006. Miller W, Robinson L, Lawrence R, eds: Valuing Health for Regulatory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC; 2006.
5.
go back to reference Damschroeder L, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P: The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation. Soc Sci Med 2005.,61(267–77): Damschroeder L, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P: The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation. Soc Sci Med 2005.,61(267–77):
6.
go back to reference Ubel P, Lowenstein 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: 599–607. 10.1023/A:1025119931010PubMedCrossRef Ubel P, Lowenstein 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: 599–607. 10.1023/A:1025119931010PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Stiggelbout A, de Vogel-Voogy E: Health state utilities: a framework for studying the gap between the imagined and real. Value in Health 2008,11(1):76–87.PubMedCrossRef Stiggelbout A, de Vogel-Voogy E: Health state utilities: a framework for studying the gap between the imagined and real. Value in Health 2008,11(1):76–87.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Gold M, Patrick D, Torrance D, et al.: Identifying and Valuing Outcomes. In Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Edited by: Gold M. Oxford University Press: New York; 1996:82–134. Gold M, Patrick D, Torrance D, et al.: Identifying and Valuing Outcomes. In Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Edited by: Gold M. Oxford University Press: New York; 1996:82–134.
9.
go back to reference Spitzer W, Dobson A, Hall J: Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients. A concise QL-Index for use by physicians. J Chronic Disease 1981, 34: 585–97. 10.1016/0021-9681(81)90058-8CrossRef Spitzer W, Dobson A, Hall J: Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients. A concise QL-Index for use by physicians. J Chronic Disease 1981, 34: 585–97. 10.1016/0021-9681(81)90058-8CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, et al.: Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 2005,14(2):285–95. 10.1007/s11136-004-0705-2PubMedCrossRef Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, et al.: Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 2005,14(2):285–95. 10.1007/s11136-004-0705-2PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Craig B, Ramachandran S: Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies. Health Econ 2006,15(8):835–48. 10.1002/hec.1108PubMedCrossRef Craig B, Ramachandran S: Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies. Health Econ 2006,15(8):835–48. 10.1002/hec.1108PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lenert L, Sturley A, Rupnow M: Toward improved methods for measurement of utility: automated repair of errors in elicitations. Med Decis Making 2003, 23: 67–75. 10.1177/0272989X02239649PubMedCrossRef Lenert L, Sturley A, Rupnow M: Toward improved methods for measurement of utility: automated repair of errors in elicitations. Med Decis Making 2003, 23: 67–75. 10.1177/0272989X02239649PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Lenert L, Treadwell J: Effects on preferences of violations of procedural invariance. Med Decis Making 1999,19(4):473–81. 10.1177/0272989X9901900415PubMedCrossRef Lenert L, Treadwell J: Effects on preferences of violations of procedural invariance. Med Decis Making 1999,19(4):473–81. 10.1177/0272989X9901900415PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Fowler F, Cleary P, Massagli M, et al.: The role of reluctance to give up life in the measurement of the values of health states. Med Decis Making 1995, 15: 195–200. 10.1177/0272989X9501500301PubMedCrossRef Fowler F, Cleary P, Massagli M, et al.: The role of reluctance to give up life in the measurement of the values of health states. Med Decis Making 1995, 15: 195–200. 10.1177/0272989X9501500301PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Rutten-van Molken M, Bakker C, van Doorslaer E, et al.: Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials. Med Care 1995,33(9):922–37. 10.1097/00005650-199509000-00004PubMedCrossRef Rutten-van Molken M, Bakker C, van Doorslaer E, et al.: Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials. Med Care 1995,33(9):922–37. 10.1097/00005650-199509000-00004PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Fischhoff B: Value elicitation Is there anything there? Amer Psychologist 1991,46(8):835–47. 10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.835CrossRef Fischhoff B: Value elicitation Is there anything there? Amer Psychologist 1991,46(8):835–47. 10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.835CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Tversky A, Kahneman D: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981,211(4481):453–8. 10.1126/science.7455683PubMedCrossRef Tversky A, Kahneman D: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981,211(4481):453–8. 10.1126/science.7455683PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Ubel P, Lowenstein G, Jepson C: Disability and sunshine: can hedonic predictions be improved by drawing attention to focusing illusions or emotional adaptation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2005,11(2):111–23. 10.1037/1076-898X.11.2.111PubMed Ubel P, Lowenstein G, Jepson C: Disability and sunshine: can hedonic predictions be improved by drawing attention to focusing illusions or emotional adaptation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2005,11(2):111–23. 10.1037/1076-898X.11.2.111PubMed
19.
go back to reference Ubel P, Lowenstein G, Schwarz N, et al.: Misimagining the unimaginable: the disability paradox and health care decision making. Health Psychol 2005,24(4 Suppl):S57-S62. 10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S57PubMedCrossRef Ubel P, Lowenstein G, Schwarz N, et al.: Misimagining the unimaginable: the disability paradox and health care decision making. Health Psychol 2005,24(4 Suppl):S57-S62. 10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S57PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Lieu T, Ortega-Sanchez I, Ray G, et al.: Community and patient values for preventing herpes zoster. Pharmacoeconomics 2008,26(3):235–49. 10.2165/00019053-200826030-00006PubMedCrossRef Lieu T, Ortega-Sanchez I, Ray G, et al.: Community and patient values for preventing herpes zoster. Pharmacoeconomics 2008,26(3):235–49. 10.2165/00019053-200826030-00006PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Kahneman D, Tversky A: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47: 263–91. 10.2307/1914185CrossRef Kahneman D, Tversky A: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47: 263–91. 10.2307/1914185CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Summary Health Statistics for the U. S.: Population: National Health Interview Survey, 2008. In Vital and Health Statistics. Hyattsville, MD; 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Summary Health Statistics for the U. S.: Population: National Health Interview Survey, 2008. In Vital and Health Statistics. Hyattsville, MD; 2009.
Metadata
Title
The effect of time of onset on community preferences for health states: an exploratory study
Author
Eve Wittenberg
Publication date
01-12-2011
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2011
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2011 Go to the issue