IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v19y2021i5d10.1007_s40258-021-00646-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incorporating Process Utility into Cost-Effectiveness Analysis via a Bolt-On Domain to the SF-6D: An Exploratory Study

Author

Listed:
  • Victoria K. Brennan

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Georgina Jones

    (Leeds Beckett University)

  • Stephen Radley

    (Jessop Wing, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and Honorary Senior Lecturer, University of Sheffield)

  • Simon Dixon

    (University of Sheffield)

Abstract

Background Within the UK, standard methods of economic evaluation centre on the maximisation of the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). However, preference-based measures used to estimate QALYs may not be suited to all economic evaluations, as they routinely measure only health outcomes. Aim This study used an economic evaluation alongside a clinical trial (EEACT) comparing patients’ preferences for a telephone versus a face-to-face consultation to incorporate process utility into cost-effectiveness analyses. Methods An EEACT is described that generates QALYs using Short-form 6-dimension version 1 (SF-6Dv1) responses. These results exclude specific consideration of process utility. A health state valuation study is then reported that bolts a process domain onto the SF-6Dv1 using data obtained from the EEACT. These results therefore include the consideration of process utility. The results of the EEACT with and without process utility are then compared. Results This study shows that the QALY, in its current form, does not capture patient benefits associated with the process of receiving healthcare. The EEACT illustrates this, showing a statistically significant difference between control and intervention groups for the patient experience questionnaire communication domain, indicating that patients preferred the intervention. This preference was not identified in the cost-effectiveness outcomes, and the point estimates lie in the north-west quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane. The preference is captured after adding a communication domain. The point estimate moves to the north-east quadrant, where the intervention is more effective and more costly than the control. Conclusion This study indicates that it is possible to capture patients’ preferences for processes associated with care, in a format compatible with the QALY.

Suggested Citation

  • Victoria K. Brennan & Georgina Jones & Stephen Radley & Simon Dixon, 2021. "Incorporating Process Utility into Cost-Effectiveness Analysis via a Bolt-On Domain to the SF-6D: An Exploratory Study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 747-756, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00646-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00646-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-021-00646-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-021-00646-4?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. Birch, Stephen & Donaldson, Cam, 2003. "Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where's the 'extra' in extra-welfarism?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 1121-1133, March.
    2. Georgina Jones & Victoria Brennan & Richard Jacques & Hilary Wood & Simon Dixon & Stephen Radley, 2018. "Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Jeffrey S. Hoch & Andrew H. Briggs & Andrew R. Willan, 2002. "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 415-430, July.
    4. Karen Gerard & Gavin Mooney, 1993. "Qaly league tables: Handle with care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 2(1), pages 59-64, April.
    5. Rita Faria & Manuel Gomes & David Epstein & Ian White, 2014. "A Guide to Handling Missing Data in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conducted Within Randomised Controlled Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1157-1170, December.
    6. Manuel Gomes & Richard Grieve & Richard Nixon & Edmond S.‐W. Ng & James Carpenter & Simon G. Thompson, 2012. "Methods For Covariate Adjustment In Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis That Use Cluster Randomised Trials," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(9), pages 1101-1118, September.
    7. Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 1997. "Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 699-707, March.
    8. 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.
    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. Mohamed El Alili & Johanna M. van Dongen & Jonas L. Esser & Martijn W. Heymans & Maurits W. van Tulder & Judith E. Bosmans, 2022. "A scoping review of statistical methods for trial‐based economic evaluations: The current state of play," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2680-2699, December.
    2. Mikyung Kelly Seo & Mark Strong, 2021. "A Practical Guide to Modeling and Conducting a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Companion Biomarker Tests for Targeted Therapies Using R: Tutorial Paper," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1373-1381, December.
    3. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    4. Abualbishr Alshreef & Allan J. Wailoo & Steven R. Brown & James P. Tiernan & Angus J. M. Watson & Katie Biggs & Mike Bradburn & Daniel Hind, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness of Haemorrhoidal Artery Ligation versus Rubber Band Ligation for the Treatment of Grade II–III Haemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence from the HubBLe Trial," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 175-184, September.
    5. John Hutton, 2012. "‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 13-18, January.
    6. William Hollingworth & Christopher G. Fawsitt & Padraig Dixon & Larisa Duffy & Ricardo Araya & Tim J. Peters & Howard Thom & Nicky J. Welton & Nicola Wiles & Glyn Lewis, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness of Sertraline in Primary Care According to Initial Severity and Duration of Depressive Symptoms: Findings from the PANDA RCT," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 427-438, September.
    7. Deidda, Manuela & Geue, Claudia & Kreif, Noemi & Dundas, Ruth & McIntosh, Emma, 2019. "A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 353-361.
    8. Gafni, Amiram & Birch, Stephen, 2006. "Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): The silence of the lambda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(9), pages 2091-2100, May.
    9. Helen A. Dakin & José Leal & Andrew Briggs & Philip Clarke & Rury R. Holman & Alastair Gray, 2020. "Accurately Reflecting Uncertainty When Using Patient-Level Simulation Models to Extrapolate Clinical Trial Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 460-473, May.
    10. Padraig Dixon & William Hollingworth & Jonathan Benger & James Calvert & Melanie Chalder & Anna King & Stephanie MacNeill & Katherine Morton & Emily Sanderson & Sarah Purdy, 2020. "Observational Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Routine Data: Admission and Discharge Care Bundles for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 657-667, December.
    11. Lamiraud, Karine & von Bremen, Konrade & Donaldson, Cam, 2009. "The impact of information on patient preferences in different delivery patterns: A contingent valuation study of prescription versus OTC drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 102-110, December.
    12. Baptiste Leurent & Manuel Gomes & Rita Faria & Stephen Morris & Richard Grieve & James R. Carpenter, 2018. "Sensitivity Analysis for Not-at-Random Missing Data in Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Tutorial," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(8), pages 889-901, August.
    13. Stephen Rocks & Daniela Berntson & Alejandro Gil-Salmerón & Mudathira Kadu & Nieves Ehrenberg & Viktoria Stein & Apostolos Tsiachristas, 2020. "Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1211-1221, November.
    14. Lidia Engel & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Conceptualising ‘Benefits Beyond Health’ in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1383-1395, December.
    15. Jason R. Guertin & Blanchard Conombo & Raphaël Langevin & Frédéric Bergeron & Anne Holbrook & Brittany Humphries & Alexis Matteau & Brian J. Potter & Christel Renoux & Jean-Éric Tarride & Madelein, 2020. "A Systematic Review of Methods Used for Confounding Adjustment in Observational Economic Evaluations in Cardiology Conducted between 2013 and 2017," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(5), pages 582-595, July.
    16. Baptiste Leurent & Manuel Gomes & Suzie Cro & Nicola Wiles & James R. Carpenter, 2020. "Reference‐based multiple imputation for missing data sensitivity analyses in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 171-184, February.
    17. Theodoros Mantopoulos & Paul M. Mitchell & Nicky J. Welton & Richard McManus & Lazaros Andronis, 2016. "Choice of statistical model for cost-effectiveness analysis and covariate adjustment: empirical application of prominent models and assessment of their results," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(8), pages 927-938, November.
    18. Peter Makai & Willemijn Looman & Eddy Adang & René Melis & Elly Stolk & Isabelle Fabbricotti, 2015. "Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 437-450, May.
    19. Noemi Kreif & Richard Grieve & Rosalba Radice & Zia Sadique & Roland Ramsahai & Jasjeet S. Sekhon, 2012. "Methods for Estimating Subgroup Effects in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(6), pages 750-763, November.
    20. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & William Hollingworth & Joanna C. Thorn & Sian Noble & Judit Simon & Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Luis Salvador-, 2023. "Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 155-166, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:19:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00646-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.