IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v22y2021i5d10.1007_s10198-021-01286-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the conduct and application of health utility studies: a review of critical appraisal tools and reporting checklists

Author

Listed:
  • Michael J. Zoratti

    (McMaster University)

  • A. Simon Pickard

    (The University of Illinois at Chicago)

  • Peep F. M. Stalmeier

    (Radboud University Medical Centre)

  • Daniel Ollendorf

    (Tufts Medical Center)

  • Andrew Lloyd

    (Acaster Lloyd Consulting Ltd)

  • Kelvin K W Chan

    (Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre
    Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control)

  • Don Husereau

    (University of Ottawa)

  • John E. Brazier

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Murray Krahn

    (Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network)

  • Mitchell Levine

    (McMaster University
    McMaster University)

  • Lehana Thabane

    (McMaster University
    St Joseph’s Healthcare)

  • Feng Xie

    (McMaster University)

Abstract

Background Published health utility studies are increasingly cited in cost–utility analyses to inform reimbursement decision-making. However, there is limited guidance for investigators looking to systematically evaluate the methodological quality of health utility studies or their applicability to decision contexts. Objective To describe how health utility concepts are reflected in tools intended for use with the health economic literature, particularly with respect to the evaluation of methodological quality and context applicability. Methods We reviewed the critical appraisal and reporting tools described in a 2012 report published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), supplemented with a keyword search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, to identify existing tools which include health utility constructs. From these tools, a list of relevant items was compiled and grouped into domain categories based on the methodological or applicability aspect they were directed toward. Results Of the 24 tools we identified, 12 contained items relevant to the evaluation of health utilities. Sixty-five items were considered relevant to the evaluation of quality, while 44 were relevant to the evaluation of applicability. Items were arranged into four domains: health state descriptions; selection and description of respondents; elicitation and measurement methods; and other considerations. Conclusion As key inputs to cost–utility analyses, health utilities have the potential to significantly impact estimates of cost-effectiveness. Existing tools contain only general items related to the conduct or use of health utility studies. There is a need to develop tools that systematically evaluate the methodological quality and applicability of health utility studies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:22:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01286-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01286-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-021-01286-0
    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/s10198-021-01286-0?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. Gerard, Karen, 1992. "Cost-utility in practice: A policy maker's guide to the state of the art," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 249-279, July.
    2. Julie Sturza, 2010. "A Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility Values for Lung Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 685-693, November.
    3. Kim Jeong & John Cairns, 2016. "Systematic review of health state utility values for economic evaluation of colorectal cancer," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    5. Steven Simoens, 2013. "Assessment of Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations in Belgian Drug Reimbursement Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    6. Stavros Petrou & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Helen Dakin & Louise Longworth & Mark Oppe & Robert Froud & Alastair Gray, 2015. "Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 1-8, August.
    7. Irmgard C. Schiller-Frühwirth & Beate Jahn & Marjan Arvandi & Uwe Siebert, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness Models in Breast Cancer Screening in the General Population: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 333-351, June.
    8. Peep F. M. Stalmeier & M. K. Goldstein & A. M. Holmes & L. Lenert & J. Miyamoto & A. M. Stiggelbout & G. W. Torrance & J. Tsevat, 2001. "What Should Be Reported in a Methods Section on Utility Assessment?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(3), pages 200-207, May.
    9. Stavros Petrou & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Helen Dakin & Louise Longworth & Mark Oppe & Robert Froud & Alastair Gray, 2015. "The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(10), pages 993-1011, October.
    10. Feng Xie & A. Pickard & Paul Krabbe & Dennis Revicki & Rosalie Viney & Nancy Devlin & David Feeny, 2015. "A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(8), pages 867-877, August.
    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. 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.
    13. Jeff Richardson & Munir A. Khan & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2015. "Comparing and Explaining Differences in the Magnitude, Content, and Sensitivity of Utilities Predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D Multiattribute Utility Instruments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 276-291, April.
    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. 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.
    2. Stavros Petrou & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Helen Dakin & Louise Longworth & Mark Oppe & Robert Froud & Alastair Gray, 2015. "Preferred Reporting Items for Studies Mapping onto Preference-Based Outcome Measures: The MAPS Statement," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(6), pages 1-8, August.
    3. Asrul Akmal Shafie & Irwinder Kaur Chhabra & Jacqueline Hui Yi Wong & Noor Syahireen Mohammed, 2021. "Mapping PedsQL™ Generic Core Scales to EQ-5D-3L utility scores in transfusion-dependent thalassemia patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 735-747, July.
    4. Carlos King Ho Wong & Prudence Wing Hang Cheung & Dino Samartzis & Keith Dip-Kei Luk & Kenneth M C Cheung & Cindy Lo Kuen Lam & Jason Pui Yin Cheung, 2017. "Mapping the SRS-22r questionnaire onto the EQ-5D-5L utility score in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, April.
    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. Admassu N. Lamu, 2020. "Does linear equating improve prediction in mapping? Crosswalking MacNew onto EQ-5D-5L value sets," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 903-915, August.
    7. Koonal K. Shah & Bryan Bennett & Andrew Lenny & Louise Longworth & John E. Brazier & Mark Oppe & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "Adapting preference-based utility measures to capture the impact of cancer treatment-related symptoms," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1301-1309, November.
    8. Turner, Alex J. & Fichera, Eleonora & Sutton, Matt, 2022. "Estimating the late-life effects of social and emotional skills in childhood using midlife mediators," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    9. Fan Yang & Carlos K. H. Wong & Nan Luo & James Piercy & Rebecca Moon & James Jackson, 2019. "Mapping the kidney disease quality of life 36-item short form survey (KDQOL-36) to the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in patients undergoing dialysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(8), pages 1195-1206, November.
    10. Giovanna Elisa Calabrò & Sara Boccalini & Donatella Panatto & Caterina Rizzo & Maria Luisa Di Pietro & Fasika Molla Abreha & Marco Ajelli & Daniela Amicizia & Angela Bechini & Irene Giacchetta & Piero, 2022. "The New Quadrivalent Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine for the Italian Elderly: A Health Technology Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-14, March.
    11. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    12. Clarke, Lorcan, 2020. "An introduction to economic studies, health emergencies, and COVID-19," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105051, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    16. Wendy Hens & Dirk Vissers & Nick Verhaeghe & Jan Gielen & Luc Van Gaal & Jan Taeymans, 2021. "Unsupervised Exercise Training Was Not Found to Improve the Metabolic Health or Phenotype over a 6-Month Dietary Intervention: A Randomised Controlled Trial with an Embedded Economic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-13, July.
    17. Aileen R. Neilson & Gareth T. Jones & Gary J. Macfarlane & Ejaz MI Pathan & Paul McNamee, 2022. "Generating EQ-5D-5L health utility scores from BASDAI and BASFI: a mapping study in patients with axial spondyloarthritis using longitudinal UK registry data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(8), pages 1357-1369, November.
    18. Richard H. Chapman & Marc Berger & Milton C. Weinstein & Jane C. Weeks & Sue Goldie & Peter J. Neumann, 2004. "When does quality‐adjusting life‐years matter in cost‐effectiveness analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 429-436, May.
    19. Kim Edmunds & Penny Reeves & Paul Scuffham & Daniel A. Galvão & Robert U. Newton & Mark Jones & Nigel Spry & Dennis R. Taaffe & David Joseph & Suzanne K. Chambers & Haitham Tuffaha, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Supervised Exercise Training in Men with Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Radiation Therapy and Androgen-Deprivation Therapy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 727-737, October.
    20. Andrew Gawron & Dustin French & John Pandolfino & Colin Howden, 2014. "Economic Evaluations of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Medical Management," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 745-758, August.

    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:22:y:2021:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01286-0. 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.