IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i24p9412-d462607.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients’ Experience

Author

Listed:
  • Jiryoun Gong

    (College of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea)

  • Juhee Han

    (College of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea)

  • Donghwan Lee

    (Department of Statistics, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea)

  • Seungjin Bae

    (College of Pharmacy, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea)

Abstract

To summarize utility estimates of breast cancer and to assess the relative impacts of study characteristics on predicting breast cancer utilities. We searched Medline, Embase, RISS, and KoreaMed from January 1996 to April 2019 to find literature reporting utilities for breast cancer. Thirty-five articles were identified, reporting 224 utilities. A hierarchical linear model was used to conduct a meta-regression that included disease stages, assessment methods, respondent type, age of the respondents, and scale bounds as explanatory variables. The utility for early and late-stage breast cancer, as estimated by using the time-tradeoff with the scales anchored by death to perfect health with non-patients, were 0.742 and 0.525, respectively. The severity of breast cancer, assessment method, and respondent type were significant predictors of utilities, but the age of the respondents and bounds of the scale were not. Patients who experienced the health states valued 0.142 higher than did non-patients ( p < 0.001). Besides the disease stage, the respondent type had the highest impact on breast cancer utility.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiryoun Gong & Juhee Han & Donghwan Lee & Seungjin Bae, 2020. "A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients’ Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:24:p:9412-:d:462607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9412/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9412/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julie Sturza, 2010. "A Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility Values for Lung Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 685-693, November.
    2. SeungJin Bae & SooOk Lee & Eun Bae & Sunmee Jang, 2013. "Korean Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation (Second and Updated Version)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 257-267, April.
    3. Sylvia J. T. Jansen & Job Kievit & Marianne A. Nooij & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2001. "Stability of Patients’ Preferences for Chemotherapy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(4), pages 295-306, 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. Tammy O. Tengs & Ting H. Lin, 2002. "A Meta-Analysis of Utility Estimates for HIV/AIDS," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(6), pages 475-481, December.
    6. Bleichrodt, Han & Wakker, Peter & Johannesson, Magnus, 1997. "Characterizing QALYs by Risk Neutrality," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 107-114, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Richard Milne & Kathy Heaton-Brown & Paul Hansen & David Thomas & Vernon Harvey & Alison Cubitt, 2006. "Quality-of-Life Valuations of Advanced Breast Cancer by New Zealand Women," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 281-292, March.
    9. John Brazier & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya & Donna Rowen, 2010. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 215-225, April.
    10. Klazien Matter-Walstra & Dirk Klingbiel & Thomas Szucs & Bernhard Pestalozzi & Matthias Schwenkglenks, 2014. "Using the EuroQol EQ-5D in Swiss Cancer Patients, Which Value Set Should be Applied?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 591-599, June.
    11. Sandjar Djalalov & Linda Rabeneck & George Tomlinson & Karen E. Bremner & Robert Hilsden & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2014. "A Review and Meta-analysis of Colorectal Cancer Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 809-818, August.
    12. Tessa Peasgood & John Brazier, 2015. "Is Meta-Analysis for Utility Values Appropriate Given the Potential Impact Different Elicitation Methods Have on Values?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(11), pages 1101-1105, November.
    13. Joseph T. King Jr. & Mindi A. Styn & Joel Tsevat & Mark S. Roberts, 2003. "“Perfect Health†versus “Disease Free†: The Impact of Anchor Point Choice on the Measurement of Preferences and the Calculation of Disease-Specific Disutilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(3), pages 212-225, May.
    14. Peasgood, T & Ward, S & Brazier, J, 2010. "A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer," MPRA Paper 29950, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. SeungJin Bae & Eun Bae & Sang Lim, 2014. "Sourcing Quality-of-Life Weights Obtained from Previous Studies: Theory and Reality in Korea," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 141-150, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Michael J. Zoratti & A. Simon Pickard & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Daniel Ollendorf & Andrew Lloyd & Kelvin K W Chan & Don Husereau & John E. Brazier & Murray Krahn & Mitchell Levine & Lehana Thabane & Fe, 2021. "Evaluating the conduct and application of health utility studies: a review of critical appraisal tools and reporting checklists," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 723-733, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Gregory Katz & Olivier Romano & Cyril Foa & Anne-Lise Vataire & Jean-Victor Chantelard & Robert Hervé & Hugues Barletta & Axel Durieux & Jean-Pierre Martin & Rémy Salmon, 2015. "Economic Impact of Gene Expression Profiling in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer in France," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Jeff Round & Mike Paulden, 2018. "Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(4), pages 489-498, May.
    5. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    6. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2013. "A new axiomatic approach to the evaluation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-523.
    7. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    8. Patricia Cubí‐Mollá & Mireia Jofre‐Bonet & Victoria Serra‐Sastre, 2017. "Adaptation to health states: Sick yet better off?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1826-1843, December.
    9. Ning Gu & Chris Bell & Marc Botteman & Xiang Ji & John Carter & Ben Hout, 2012. "Estimating Preference-Based EQ-5D Health State Utilities or Item Responses from Neuropathic Pain Scores," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(3), pages 185-197, September.
    10. Mahesh D. Pandey & Jatin S. Nathwani, 2003. "Canada Wide Standard for Particulate Matter and Ozone: Cost‐Benefit Analysis Using a Life Quality Index," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 55-67, February.
    11. Cubi-Molla, P. & De Vries, J. & Devlin, N., 2013. "A Study of the Relationship Between Health and Subjective Well-being in Parkinson’s Disease Patients," Working Papers 13/12, Department of Economics, City University London.
    12. Micah Rose & Stephen Rice & Dawn Craig, 2018. "Does Methodological Guidance Produce Consistency? A Review of Methodological Consistency in Breast Cancer Utility Value Measurement in NICE Single Technology Appraisals," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 97-107, June.
    13. Peter A. Ubel & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel, 2000. "Societal value, the person trade‐off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 127-136, March.
    14. David G. T. Whitehurst & Stirling Bryan & Martyn Lewis, 2011. "Systematic Review and Empirical Comparison of Contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D Group Mean Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 34-44, November.
    15. John M. Miyamoto & Peter P. Wakker & Han Bleichrodt & Hans J. M. Peters, 1998. "The Zero-Condition: A Simplifying Assumption in QALY Measurement and Multiattribute Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(6), pages 839-849, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Richard Norman & Jane Hall & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Efficiency And Equity: A Stated Preference Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 568-581, May.
    18. Zhongliang Zhou & Yu Fang & Zhiying Zhou & Dan Li & Dan Wang & Yanli Li & Li Lu & Jianmin Gao & Gang Chen, 2017. "Assessing Income-Related Health Inequality and Horizontal Inequity in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 241-256, May.
    19. Ryen, Linda & Svensson, Mikael, 2014. "The Willingness to Pay for a QALY: a Review of the Empirical Literature," Karlstad University Working Papers in Economics 12, Karlstad University, Department of Economics.
    20. Aureliano Paolo Finch & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria, 2021. "Selecting Bolt-on Dimensions for the EQ-5D: Testing the Impact of Hearing, Sleep, Cognition, Energy, and Relationships on Preferences Using Pairwise Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 89-99, January.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:24:p:9412-:d:462607. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.