IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v13y2004i7p733-737.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ‐5D valuation set

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Roberts
  • Paul Dolan

Abstract

The EQ‐5D general population valuation set (or ‘tariff’) is increasingly being used in the evaluation of health care interventions and has been recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) for use in cost‐utility analyses of health technologies. To be of use to decision‐makers, the health gain implied by changes in health state values must reflect individual preferences. At the simplest level, if State A has a higher mean value than State B, then the majority of people should consider a move from B to A to be a good thing. In this paper, we examine the extent to which this is true by re‐analysing data from the general population study used to derive the EQ‐5D tariff. We show that, on average, the difference in value between two states has to be as large as 0.20 (on a scale where one represents full and zero represents death) for 70% of respondents to agree with the sign of that difference (never mind its size). Results such as these have important implications for the use of the EQ‐5D tariff that has been generated from these data. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Roberts & Paul Dolan, 2004. "To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ‐5D valuation set," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(7), pages 733-737, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:7:p:733-737
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.875
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.875?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    2. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    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. Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A & Brazier, J & Young, Tracey A., 2007. "Estimating a preference-based single index from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ)," MPRA Paper 29804, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.
    3. Polly Mitchell & Anna Alexandrova, 2021. "Well-Being and Pluralism," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 2411-2433, August.
    4. Juan M Cabasés & Eduardo Sánchez & Francisco J Vázquez-Polo & Miguel A Negrín & Emilio J Domínguez, 2005. "Self-Perceived Health Status Of Schizophrenic Patients In Spain: An Analysis Of Geographical Differences Using Bayesian Approach," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 0505, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra, revised 2005.
    5. McNamee, Paul, 2007. "What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(2-3), pages 321-331, December.
    6. Yaling Yang & John E. Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tracey A. Young, 2011. "Estimating a Preference-Based Index for a 5-Dimensional Health State Classification for Asthma Derived from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 281-291, March.

    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. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    2. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Yan Feng & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 7-22, January.
    3. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    4. Nick Bansback & Huiying Sun & Daphne P. Guh & Xin Li & Bohdan Nosyk & Susan Griffin & Paul G. Barnett & Aslam H. Anis, 2008. "Impact of the recall period on measuring health utilities for acute events," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1413-1419.
    5. Clarke, Philip & Erreygers, Guido, 2020. "Defining and measuring health poverty," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    6. Francesca Cornaglia & Naomi E. Feldman & Andrew Leigh, 2014. "Crime and Mental Well-Being," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 49(1), pages 110-140.
    7. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    8. 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.
    9. Anirban Basu & William Dale & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2009. "A linear index for predicting joint health‐states utilities from single health‐states utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 403-419, April.
    10. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    11. Thomas Reinhold & Claudia Witt & Susanne Jena & Benno Brinkhaus & Stefan Willich, 2008. "Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture treatment in patients with osteoarthritis pain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 209-219, August.
    12. Kontodimopoulos, Nick & Niakas, Dimitris, 2008. "An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients' life expectancy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 85-96, April.
    13. Allanson, Paul, 2017. "Monitoring income-related health differences between regions in Great Britain: A new measure for ordinal health data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 72-80.
    14. Andrew M. Jones & Audrey Laporte & Nigel Rice & Eugenio Zucchelli, 2019. "Dynamic panel data estimation of an integrated Grossman and Becker–Murphy model of health and addiction," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 703-733, February.
    15. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    16. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Johanna L. Bosch & Elkan F. Halpern & G. Scott Gazelle, 2002. "Comparison of Preference-Based Utilities of the Short-Form 36 Health Survey and Health Utilities Index before and after Treatment of Patients with Intermittent Claudication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(5), pages 403-409, October.
    19. Christopher McCabe & Katherine Stevens & Jennifer Roberts & John Brazier, 2005. "Health state values for the HUI 2 descriptive system: results from a UK survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 231-244, March.
    20. Swee Soon & Su Goh & Yong Bee & Jiat Poon & Shu Li & Julian Thumboo & Hwee Wee, 2010. "Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life (ADDQoL) [Chinese version for Singapore] questionnaire," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 239-249, July.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:7:p:733-737. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.