IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v19y2018i6d10.1007_s10198-017-0931-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it

Author

Listed:
  • John Brazier

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Donna Rowen

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Milad Karimi

    (University of Sheffield
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • Tessa Peasgood

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Aki Tsuchiya

    (University of Sheffield
    University of Sheffield)

  • Julie Ratcliffe

    (University of South Australia)

Abstract

In the estimation of population value sets for health state classification systems such as the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D), there is increasing interest in asking respondents to value their own health state, sometimes referred to as “experience-based utility values” or, more correctly, own rather than hypothetical health states. Own health state values differ to hypothetical health state values, and this may be attributable to many reasons. This paper critically examines whose values matter; why there is a difference between own and hypothetical values; how to measure own health state values; and why to use own health state values. Finally, the paper examines other ways that own health state values can be taken into account, such as including the use of informed general population preferences that may better take into account experience-based values.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0931-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0931-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-017-0931-5
    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/s10198-017-0931-5?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.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(1), pages 161-181, September.
    3. Litva, Andrea & Coast, Joanna & Donovan, Jenny & Eyles, John & Shepherd, Michael & Tacchi, Jo & Abelson, Julia & Morgan, Kieran, 2002. "'The public is too subjective': public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1825-1837, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Julie Ratcliffe & John Brazier & Simon Palfreyman & Jonathan Michaels, 2007. "A comparison of patient and population values for health states in varicose veins patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(4), pages 395-405, April.
    6. P. Thokala & A. Duenas, 2012. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment," Post-Print hal-00800398, HAL.
    7. 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.
    8. Paul Dolan, 1999. "Whose Preferences Count?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 482-486, October.
    9. Sprangers, Mirjam A. G. & Schwartz, Carolyn E., 1999. "Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(11), pages 1507-1515, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Paul Dolan, 2011. "Thinking about it: thoughts about health and valuing QALYs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(12), pages 1407-1416, December.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. McTaggart-Cowan, Helen & Tsuchiya, Aki & O'Cathain, Alicia & Brazier, John, 2011. "Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(11), pages 1904-1912, June.
    18. Karimi, M. & Brazier, J. & Paisley, S., 2017. "How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 80-88.
    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. 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).
    2. Zsombor Zrubka & Zoltán Hermann & László Gulácsi & Valentin Brodszky & Fanni Rencz & Márta Péntek, 2019. "Determinants of the acceptability of health problems in different ages: exploring a new application of the EQ VAS," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 31-41, June.
    3. 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).

    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. Dolan, Paul & Kavetsos, Georgios & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2013. "Sick but satisfied: The impact of life and health satisfaction on choice between health scenarios," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 708-714.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. van Hoorn, André, 2018. "Is the happiness approach to measuring preferences valid?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 53-65.
    6. 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.
    7. van Hoorn, Andre, 2016. "Reliability and Validity of the Happiness Approach to Measuring Preferences," MPRA Paper 79977, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Akay, Alpaslan & Bargain, Olivier & Jara, Xavier, 2017. "Back to Bentham, Should We? Large-Scale Comparison of Experienced versus Decision Utility," IZA Discussion Papers 10907, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Engel, Lidia & Bryan, Stirling & Noonan, Vanessa K. & Whitehurst, David G.T., 2018. "Using path analysis to investigate the relationships between standardized instruments that measure health-related quality of life, capability wellbeing and subjective wellbeing: An application in the ," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 154-164.
    10. Al-Janabi, Hareth & Keeley, Thomas & Mitchell, Paul & Coast, Joanna, 2013. "Can capabilities be self-reported? A think aloud study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 116-122.
    11. Sebastian Himmler & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2020. "Happy with Your Capabilities? Valuing ICECAP-O and ICECAP-A States Based on Experienced Utility Using Subjective Well-Being Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 498-510, May.
    12. Goodwin, Elizabeth & Davey, Antoinette & Green, Colin & Hawton, Annie, 2021. "What drives differences in preferences for health states between patients and the public? A qualitative investigation of respondents’ thought processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    13. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    14. Koen Decancq & Marc Fleurbaey & Erik Schokkaert, 2015. "Happiness, Equivalent Incomes and Respect for Individual Preferences," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 82, pages 1082-1106, December.
    15. Matthew D Rablen, 2012. "The promotion of local wellbeing: A primer for policymakers," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 27(3), pages 297-314, May.
    16. Fumio Ohtake & Katsunori Yamada, 2013. "Appraising the Unhappiness due to the Great East Japan Earthquake: Evidence from Weekly Panel Data on Subjective Well-being," ISER Discussion Paper 0876, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    17. Graham, Liam & Oswald, Andrew J., 2006. "Hedonic Capital," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 745, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    18. Hausman, Daniel M., 2023. "Eliciting preferences and respecting values: Why ask?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    19. Powdthavee, Nattavudh & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Putting different price tags on the same health condition: Re-evaluating the well-being valuation approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 1032-1043.
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Experience-based utility; Own health state valuation; Hypothetical health state values; Informed preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0931-5. 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.