IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v228y2019icp142-154.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures

Author

Listed:
  • Bromley, Hannah L.
  • Petrie, Dennis
  • Mann, G.Bruce
  • Nickson, Carolyn
  • Rea, Daniel
  • Roberts, Tracy E.

Abstract

Policy decisions regarding breast cancer screening and treatment programmes may be misplaced unless the decision process includes the appropriate utilities and disutilities of mammography screening and its sequelae. The objectives of this study were to critically review how economic evaluations have valued the health states associated with breast cancer screening, and appraise the primary evidence informing health state utility values (cardinal measures of quality of life). A systematic review was conducted up to September 2018 of studies that elicited or used utilities relevant to mammography screening. The methods used to elicit utilities and the quality of the reported values were tabulated and analysed narratively.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:228:y:2019:i:c:p:142-154
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.03.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953619301704
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. 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.
    2. John C. Hershey & Howard C. Kunreuther & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1982. "Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 936-954, August.
    3. Andrew Keller & Christian Gericke & Jennifer A. Whitty & John Yaxley & Boon Kua & Geoff Coughlin & Troy Gianduzzo, 2017. "A Cost-Utility Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in Australia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 95-111, February.
    4. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Dolan, Paul, 2008. "Developing methods that really do value the ‘Q’ in the QALY," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 69-77, January.
    7. Ester Vilaprinyo & Carles Forné & Misericordia Carles & Maria Sala & Roger Pla & Xavier Castells & Laia Domingo & Montserrat Rue & the Interval Cancer (INCA) Study Group, 2014. "Cost-Effectiveness and Harm-Benefit Analyses of Risk-Based Screening Strategies for Breast Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-10, February.
    8. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    11. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    12. Johnston, Katharine & Brown, Jackie & Gerard, Karen & O'Hanlon, Moira & Morton, Alison, 1998. "Valuing temporary and chronic health states associated with breast screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 213-222, July.
    13. Hall, Jane & Gerard, Karen & Salkeld, Glenn & Richardson, Jeff, 1992. "A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 993-1004, May.
    14. Paul McNamee & Sharon Glendinning & Jonathan Shenfine & Nick Steen & S. Griffin & John Bond, 2004. "Chained time trade-off and standard gamble methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(1), pages 81-86, February.
    15. William Furlong & David Feeny & George Torrance & Ronald Barr & John Horsman, 1992. "Guide to Design and Development of Health-State Utility Instrumentation," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1990-09, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    16. 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.
    17. Paul Kind & Geoffrey Hardman & Susan Macran, 1999. "UK population norms for EQ-5D," Working Papers 172chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:eee:socmed:v:228:y:2019:i:c:p:142-154. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.