IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v123y2019i2p166-172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states

Author

Listed:
  • Ogorevc, Marko
  • Murovec, Nika
  • Fernandez, Natacha Bolanos
  • Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explore whether any differences exist between the general population and patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states. The article discusses the role of adaptation and self-interest in valuing health states and it also contributes rigorous empirical evidence to the scientific debate on the differences between the patient and general population preferences towards hypothetical health states. Patient preferences were elicited in 2015 with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire using time trade-off and discrete choice experiment design and compared to the Spanish general population preferences, which were elicited using identical methods. Patients were chosen on a voluntary basis according to their willingness to participate in the survey. They were recruited from patient organisations and a hospital in Madrid, Spain. 282 metastatic breast cancer patients and 333 rheumatoid arthritis patients were included in the sample. The analysis revealed differences in preferences between the general population and patient groups. Based on the results of our analysis, it is suggested that the differences in preferences stem from patients being more able to accurately imagine “non-tangible” dimensions of health states (anxiety or depression, and pain or discomfort) than the general population with less experience in various health states. However, this does not mean that general public values should not be reflected in utilities derived for coverage decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Ogorevc, Marko & Murovec, Nika & Fernandez, Natacha Bolanos & Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik, 2019. "Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 166-172.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:123:y:2019:i:2:p:166-172
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851017300866
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923, Decembrie.
    2. Afschin Gandjour, 2010. "Theoretical Foundation of Patient v. Population Preferences in Calculating QALYs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(4), pages 57-63, July.
    3. Loewenstein, George & Ubel, Peter A., 2008. "Hedonic adaptation and the role of decision and experience utility in public policy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1795-1810, August.
    4. Norman F. Boyd & Heather J. Sutherland & Karen Z. Heasman & David L. Tritchler & Bernard J. Cummings, 1990. "Whose Utilities for Decision Analysis?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(1), pages 58-67, February.
    5. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    6. Hadorn, David C., 1991. "The role of public values in setting health care priorities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 773-781, January.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Alan B. Krueger, 2006. "Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, Winter.
    8. Koonal Shah & Andrew Lloyd & Mark Oppe & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "One-to-one versus group setting for conducting computer-assisted TTO studies: findings from pilot studies in England and the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 65-73, July.
    9. Paul Dolan, 1999. "Whose Preferences Count?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 482-486, October.
    10. Rachel Mann & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2009. "A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ‐5D dimensions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 363-372, March.
    11. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    12. Menzel, Paul & Dolan, Paul & Richardson, Jeff & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2002. "The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(12), pages 2149-2158, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kristina Burström & Fitsum Sebsibe Teni & Ulf-G. Gerdtham & Reiner Leidl & Gert Helgesson & Ola Rolfson & Martin Henriksson, 2020. "Experience-Based Swedish TTO and VAS Value Sets for EQ-5D-5L Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(8), pages 839-856, August.
    2. Elliott, Jack & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2022. "Do they just know more, or do they also have different preferences? An exploratory analysis of the effects of self-reporting serious health problems on health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    3. Nathan S. McClure & Mike Paulden & Arto Ohinmaa & Jeffrey A. Johnson, 2021. "Modifying the quality-adjusted life year calculation to account for meaningful change in health-related quality of life: insights from a pragmatic clinical trial," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1441-1451, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Milad Karimi & Tessa Peasgood & Aki Tsuchiya & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Experience-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, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 881-891, July.
    2. Thébaut, Clémence, 2013. "Dealing with moral dilemma raised by adaptive preferences in health technology assessment: The example of growth hormones and bilateral cochlear implants," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 102-109.
    3. Anja Schwalm & You-Shan Feng & Jörn Moock & Thomas Kohlmann, 2015. "Differences in EQ-5D-3L health state valuations among patients with musculoskeletal diseases, health care professionals and healthy volunteers," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 865-877, November.
    4. Álvarez, Begoña & Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva, 2011. "Patients' self-interested preferences: Empirical evidence from a priority setting experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1317-1324, April.
    5. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Stöckel, Jannis & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2023. "Adaptation in life satisfaction and self-assessed health to disability - Evidence from the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 328(C).
    7. Charles Christian Adarkwah & Amirhossein Sadoghi & Afschin Gandjour, 2016. "Should Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis Include the Cost of Consumption Activities? AN Empirical Investigation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 249-256, February.
    8. Elliott, Jack & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2022. "Do they just know more, or do they also have different preferences? An exploratory analysis of the effects of self-reporting serious health problems on health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    9. Begoña Álvarez & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, 2009. "Patients’ self-interest bias: Empirical evidence from a priority-setting experiment," Working Papers 0903, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    10. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    11. Nils Gutacker & Thomas Patton & Koonal Shah & David Parkin, 2020. "Using EQ-5D Data to Measure Hospital Performance: Are General Population Values Distorting Patients’ Choices?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 511-521, May.
    12. Mukuria, Clara & Brazier, John, 2013. "Valuing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D health states using subjective well-being: A secondary analysis of patient data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 97-105.
    13. Hajdu, Tamás & Hajdu, Gábor, 2011. "A hasznosság és a relatív jövedelem kapcsolatának vizsgálata magyar adatok segítségével [Examining the relation of utility and relative income using Hungarian data]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 56-73.
    14. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    15. DECANCQ, Koen & FLEURBAEY, Marc & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2014. "Inequality, income, and well-being," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014018, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    16. Koen Decancq & Erik Schokkaert, 2016. "Beyond GDP: Using Equivalent Incomes to Measure Well-Being in Europe," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 21-55, March.
    17. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    18. Paul Dolan & Daniel Kahneman, 2008. "Interpretations Of Utility And Their Implications For The Valuation Of Health," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 215-234, January.
    19. Rachel Mann & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2009. "A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ‐5D dimensions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 363-372, March.
    20. Floortje Nooten & Jan Busschbach & Michel Agthoven & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2018. "What should we know about the person behind a TTO?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(9), pages 1207-1211, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:123:y:2019:i:2:p:166-172. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.