Ken Stein (Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Exeter, England) Alison Fry (Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Exeter, England) Ali Round (Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Exeter, England) Ruairidh Milne (National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, University of Southampton, Southampton, England) John Brazier (Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England)
Abstract
The objective of this article was to review the methods used to obtain quality-of-life (utility) weights reported in assessments carried out for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). The design of the review was a cross-sectional survey. Health technology assessment (HTA) reports published on the NICE website up to May 2003 were reviewed. Data were extracted on the following: the approach to utility estimation (direct or indirect), how health states were described for indirect estimation, valuation techniques used (standard gamble [SG], time trade-off [TTO], visual analogue scale [VAS], etc.), whether uncertainty in utility estimates was explored in cost-utility analyses, and whether utility values were identified as a priority for further research by assessment authors. Fifty-six assessments were reviewed, of which 28 reported 45 cost-utility analyses. There was striking variation in the values used to describe different health states. Data from patients were used in 15 (33%) analyses, from the general public in 10 (22%) and from clinicians in 4 (9%). In 16 (36%) cases, the source for utility estimates was unclear. Health states were described using a range of generic and disease-specific measures, although the EQ-5D was used most frequently. In 25 analyses (56%), the valuation technique used was not reported. TTO was used in 11 (24%), SG in 3 (7%), magnitude estimation in 5 (11%) and VAS in 1 (2%). Sensitivity analyses based on utility values were reported in 25 cases (56%), more commonly in reports of analyses carried out by independent teams than technology sponsors although this may be subject to reporting bias. Further research into quality of life was recommended in 17 (61%) of the 28 assessment reports that contained at least one cost-utility analysis. Greater transparency and consistency are required in reporting the methods used to obtain quality-of-life weights in cost-utility analyses, and better sources of data are required. Methodological variation results in important differences in values. Therefore, caution must be exercised when comparing the results of different cost-utility analyses.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Find related papers by JEL classification: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods D - Microeconomics I - Health, Education, and Welfare Z - Other Special Topics I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
Did you know? Each page is provided with a technical contact, in case something is not right with the supplied information. See under "publisher info".