IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v351y2024ics0277953624004453.html

Differences in health utilities between cancer patients and the general population: The case of Quebec using the SF-6Dv2

Author

Listed:
  • Touré, Moustapha
  • Poder, Thomas G.

Abstract

A considerable debate persists in the literature about whose preferences should be considered in the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years. Some suggest considering only the preferences of the general population, while others advocate for the consideration of those of patients or a combination of both. This study aims to inform and measure the differences in health preferences between cancer patients and the general population in Quebec. A total of 60,976 observations representing the preferences of the general population for various health states were collected and used to develop a new value set using the SF-6Dv2. This value set was generated by combining 34,299 observations with time trade-off (TTO) and 26,677 observations with discrete choice experiment (DCE). Utility scores derived from this value set were compared to those of patients' preferences from a new value set in breast and colorectal patients for the SF-6Dv2. For both patients and the general population, the ‘Pain’ dimension was the highest contributor to the utility score. However, noticeable differences were observed in the estimates. Estimates of levels 2 and 3 were generally lower for cancer patients, while they were more likely to have greater estimates in severe levels. Significant differences in utility scores were also noticed with the general population showing higher mean utility scores for the same health states. These differences increased as the health states worsened. This study sheds light on the existing differences in preferences between cancer patients and the general population of Quebec for a better consideration in healthcare decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Touré, Moustapha & Poder, Thomas G., 2024. "Differences in health utilities between cancer patients and the general population: The case of Quebec using the SF-6Dv2," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 351(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:351:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624004453
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624004453
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117001?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Afschin Gandjour, 2010. "Theoretical Foundation of Patient v. Population Preferences in Calculating QALYs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(4), pages 57-63, July.
    2. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    3. Moustapha Touré & Christian R. C. Kouakou & Thomas G. Poder, 2021. "Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-22, April.
    4. Norman F. Boyd & Heather J. Sutherland & Karen Z. Heasman & David L. Tritchler & Bernard J. Cummings, 1990. "Whose Utilities for Decision Analysis?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(1), pages 58-67, February.
    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. 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.
    7. Paul Dolan, 1999. "Whose Preferences Count?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 482-486, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Fredrick Dermawan Purba & Joke A. M. Hunfeld & Aulia Iskandarsyah & Titi Sahidah Fitriana & Sawitri Supardi Sadarjoen & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Jan Passchier & Jan J. V. Busschbach, 2017. "The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L Value Set," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(11), pages 1153-1165, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Mark Oppe & Kim Rand-Hendriksen & Koonal Shah & Juan M. Ramos‐Goñi & Nan Luo, 2016. "EuroQol Protocols for Time Trade-Off Valuation of Health Outcomes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 993-1004, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Albrecht, Gary L. & Devlieger, Patrick J., 1999. "The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 977-988, April.
    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. Poder, Thomas G. & Ameri, Hosein, 2025. "A new SF-6Dv2 value set based on a hybrid model using SG, cTTO, and DCE data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 366(C).
    2. Poder, Thomas G. & Ameri, Hosein, 2025. "Comparison of methods for anchoring latent values on the full health-dead utility scale," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 383(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. 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.
    2. Poder, Thomas G. & Ameri, Hosein, 2025. "A new SF-6Dv2 value set based on a hybrid model using SG, cTTO, and DCE data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 366(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    7. Yu, Alice & Viney, Rosalie & Goodall, Stephen & Street, Deborah J., 2025. "Can an ‘informed’ general population sample be comparable to a patient sample? A case study of preferences for chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Schünemann, Johannes & Strulik, Holger & Trimborn, Timo, 2017. "Going from bad to worse: Adaptation to poor health health spending, longevity, and the value of life," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 130-146.
    10. Charles Christian Adarkwah & Amirhossein Sadoghi & Afschin Gandjour, 2016. "Should Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis Include the Cost of Consumption Activities? AN Empirical Investigation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 249-256, February.
    11. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    12. 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).
    13. Sara Olofsson & Katarina Gralén & Christina Hoxer & Paul Okhuoya & Ulf Persson, 2022. "The impact on quality of life of diet restrictions and disease symptoms associated with phenylketonuria: a time trade-off and discrete choice experiment study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 993-1005, August.
    14. Song, Jia & Chen, Gang & Khadka, Jyoti & Milte, Rachel & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2024. "One and the same or different? An empirical comparison of aged care recipient and non-aged care recipient preferences for quality of aged care amongst older Australians," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 353(C).
    15. Anja Schwalm & You-Shan Feng & Jörn Moock & Thomas Kohlmann, 2015. "Differences in EQ-5D-3L health state valuations among patients with musculoskeletal diseases, health care professionals and healthy volunteers," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 865-877, November.
    16. Álvarez, Begoña & Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva, 2011. "Patients' self-interested preferences: Empirical evidence from a priority setting experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1317-1324, April.
    17. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Paul Dolan & Henry Lee & Tessa Peasgood, 2012. "Losing Sight of the Wood for the Trees," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(11), pages 1035-1049, November.
    19. van Hulsen, Merel A.J. & Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & van Exel, Job, 2023. "Preferences for investment in and allocation of additional healthcare capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:socmed:v:351:y:2024:i:c:s0277953624004453. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.