IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v153y2016icp210-219.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency

Author

Listed:
  • Rodríguez-Míguez, E.
  • Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M.
  • Alvarez, X.C.
  • González, X.M.
  • Sampayo, A.R.

Abstract

In medical literature there are numerous multidimensional scales to measure health states for dependence in activities of daily living. However, these scales are not preference-based and are not able to yield QALYs. On the contrary, the generic preference-based measures are not sensitive enough to measure changes in dependence states. The objective of this paper is to propose a new dependency health state classification system, called DEP-6D, and to estimate its value set in such a way that it can be used in QALY calculations. DEP-6D states are described as a combination of 6 attributes (eat, incontinence, personal care, mobility, housework and cognition problems), with 3–4 levels each. A sample of 312 Spanish citizens was surveyed in 2011 to estimate the DEP-6D preference-scoring algorithm. Each respondent valued six out of the 24 states using time trade-off questions. After excluding those respondents who made two or more inconsistencies (6% out of the sample), each state was valued between 66 and 77 times. The responses present a high internal and external consistency. A random effect model accounting for main effects was the preferred model to estimate the scoring algorithm. The DEP-6D describes, in general, more severe problems than those usually described by means of generic preference-based measures. The minimum score predicted by the DEP-6D algorithm is −0.84, which is considerably lower than the minimum value predicted by the EQ-5D and SF-6D algorithms. The DEP-6D value set is based on community preferences. Therefore it is consistent with the so-called ‘societal perspective’. Moreover, DEP-6D preference weights can be used in QALY calculations and cost-utility analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:153:y:2016:i:c:p:210-219
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.02.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616300752
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.02.020?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. Han Bleichrodt & Magnus Johannesson, 1997. "The Validity of QALYs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(1), pages 21-32, February.
    2. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    3. Donald L. Patrick & Helene E. Starks & Kevin C. Cain & Richard F. Uhlmann & Robert A. Pearlman, 1994. "Measuring Preferences for Health States Worse than Death," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 9-18, February.
    4. Leida M. Lamers & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Paul F. M. Krabbe & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(2), pages 173-181, March.
    5. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    6. Badia, Xavier & Roset, Monserrat & Herdman, Michael, 1999. "Inconsistent responses in three preference-elicitation methods for health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(7), pages 943-950, October.
    7. Dolan, Paul & Roberts, Jennifer, 2002. "To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 919-929, March.
    8. Abellan-Perpiñan, Jose Maria & Bleichrodt, Han & Pinto-Prades, Jose Luis, 2009. "The predictive validity of prospect theory versus expected utility in health utility measurement," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1039-1047, December.
    9. Xavier Badia & Montserrat Roset & Michael Herdman & Paul Kind, 2001. "A Comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish General Population Time Trade-off Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 7-16, February.
    10. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    11. Billingsley Kaambwa & Lucinda Billingham & Stirling Bryan, 2013. "Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(2), pages 231-241, April.
    12. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834.
    13. Eve Wittenberg & Lisa Prosser, 2011. "Ordering errors, objections and invariance in utility survey responses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 225-241, July.
    14. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    15. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    16. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884, Decembrie.
    17. Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N. & Natarajan, Lucy & Sproston, Kerry & Lewis, Jane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J., 2008. "Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 874-882, September.
    18. Aki Tsuchiya & Shunya Ikeda & Naoki Ikegami & Shuzo Nishimura & Ikuro Sakai & Takashi Fukuda & Chisato Hamashima & Akinori Hisashige & Makoto Tamura, 2002. "Estimating an EQ‐5D population value set: the case of Japan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(4), pages 341-353, June.
    19. Nancy J. Devlin & Paul Hansen & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 2003. "Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations ‐ a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 529-544, July.
    20. Christine de la Maisonneuve & Joaquim Oliveira Martins, 2013. "Public Spending on Health and Long-term Care: A new set of projections," OECD Economic Policy Papers 6, OECD Publishing.
    21. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    22. Donaldson, Cam & Atkinson, Ann & Bond, John & Wright, Ken, 1988. "Should QALYs be programme-specific?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 239-257, September.
    23. Olsen, Jan Abel & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2005. "Implicit versus explicit ranking: On inferring ordinal preferences for health care programmes based on differences in willingness-to-pay," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 990-996, September.
    24. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    25. Dena M. Bravata & Lorene M. Nelson & Alan M. Garber & Mary K. Goldstein, 2005. "Invariance and Inconsistency in Utility Ratings," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(2), pages 158-167, March.
    26. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    27. W. Greiner & C. Claes & J. J. V. Busschbach & J.-M. Schulenburg, 2005. "Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(2), pages 124-130, June.
    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. Oscar Andrés Espinosa Acuna, 2020. "Clasificación de estados de salud y metodologías de valoración de preferencias para el cálculo de AVAC: una revisión de literatura," Ensayos de Economía 19137, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Medellín.
    2. Moustapha Touré & Christian R. C. Kouakou & Thomas G. Poder, 2021. "Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-22, April.

    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. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    2. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    4. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 306-318.
    5. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    6. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2010. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate societal health state utility values," MPRA Paper 29933, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Donna Rowen, 2012. "Methods for Developing Preference-based Measures of Health," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Kompal Sinha & Munir A. Khan & John Mckie, 2014. "An Instrument For Measuring The Social Willingness To Pay For Health State Improvement," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(7), pages 792-805, July.
    9. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    10. Irina Cleemput, 2010. "A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 205-213, April.
    11. Arthur E. Attema & Werner B.F. Brouwer, 2014. "Deriving Time Discounting Correction Factors For Tto Tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 410-425, April.
    12. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 575-587, October.
    13. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    14. Munir A. Khan & Jeff Richardson, 2019. "Is the Validity of Cost Utility Analysis Improved When Utility is Measured by an Instrument with ‘Home-Country’ Weights? Evidence from Six Western Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-15, August.
    15. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    16. José María Abellán Perpiñán & Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez & Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & Ildefonso Méndez, 2012. "Lowering The ‘Floor’ Of The Sf‐6d Scoring Algorithm Using A Lottery Equivalent Method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(11), pages 1271-1285, November.
    17. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132, October.
    18. P. Wang & M. Li & G. Liu & J. Thumboo & N. Luo, 2015. "Do Chinese have similar health-state preferences? A comparison of mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 857-863, November.
    19. Richard Norman & Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber & Donna Rowen & John E. Brazier & David Cella & A. Simon Pickard & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Dennis Revicki & Madeleine T. King & On behalf of the Eu, 2019. "U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU‐C10D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1385-1401, December.
    20. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Aki Tsuchiya & Jan Busschbach, 2004. "A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 873-884, September.

    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:socmed:v:153:y:2016:i:c:p:210-219. 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 (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.