IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v22y2002i1p27-38.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Health State Utilities Using Community and Patient Preference Weights Derived from a Survey of Patients with HIV/AIDS

Author

Listed:
  • Bruce R. Schackman

    (Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts)

  • Sue J. Goldie

    (Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts)

  • Kenneth A. Freedberg

    (Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, Division of General Medicine and the Partners AIDS Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts)

  • Elena Losina

    (Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts)

  • John Brazier

    (Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, Sheffield Health Economics Group, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom)

  • Milton C. Weinstein

    (Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts)

Abstract

Objectives . The authors compare health state utilities derived from a national survey of patients with HIV/AIDS to represent community-based preferences with utilities derived from the same survey representing patient preferences; explore the relationships between these utilities and the dimensions of the SF-6D health state classification; and examine the implications of differences in the source of utilities for a cost-effectiveness analysis of early treatment of patients with HIV/AIDS. Methods . The authors derived community-based standard gamble (SG) utilities using an algorithm developed for the SF-6D health state classification system. The authors derived patient SG utilities from HIV/AIDS patient rating scale self-assessments using a power transformation. Data were from the HIV Cost and Services Utilization Study, a probability sample of 2864 HIV-infected adults receiving care in the United States in 1996. Results . Patient SG utilities were higher than community SG utilities by 4% to 9% (0.979 vs.0.937, 0.910 vs. 0.841, and 0.845 vs. 0.778; P

Suggested Citation

  • Bruce R. Schackman & Sue J. Goldie & Kenneth A. Freedberg & Elena Losina & John Brazier & Milton C. Weinstein, 2002. "Comparison of Health State Utilities Using Community and Patient Preference Weights Derived from a Survey of Patients with HIV/AIDS," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1), pages 27-38, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:22:y:2002:i:1:p:27-38
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0202200103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0202200103
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0202200103?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. Paul Dolan, 1999. "Whose Preferences Count?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(4), pages 482-486, October.
    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. Xiao Zang & Houlin Tang & Jeong Eun Min & Diane Gu & Julio S G Montaner & Zunyou Wu & Bohdan Nosyk, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness of the ‘One4All’ HIV Linkage Intervention in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Yazdan Yazdanpanah & Caroline E Sloan & Cécile Charlois-Ou & Stéphane Le Vu & Caroline Semaille & Dominique Costagliola & Josiane Pillonel & Anne-Isabelle Poullié & Olivier Scemama & Sylvie Deuffic-Bu, 2010. "Routine HIV Screening in France: Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-9, October.
    3. Lauren E Cipriano & Gregory S Zaric & Mark Holodniy & Eran Bendavid & Douglas K Owens & Margaret L Brandeau, 2012. "Cost Effectiveness of Screening Strategies for Early Identification of HIV and HCV Infection in Injection Drug Users," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-14, September.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:70-78 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Yazdan Yazdanpanah & Julian Perelman & Madeline A DiLorenzo & Joana Alves & Henrique Barros & Céu Mateus & João Pereira & Kamal Mansinho & Marion Robine & Ji-Eun Park & Eric L Ross & Elena Losina & Ro, 2013. "Routine HIV Screening in Portugal: Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Parastu Kasaie & Matthew Radford & Sunaina Kapoor & Younghee Jung & Beatriz Hernandez Novoa & David Dowdy & Maunank Shah, 2018. "Economic and epidemiologic impact of guidelines for early ART initiation irrespective of CD4 count in Spain," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-15, November.
    8. Yoav Ganzach & Moshe Leshno, 2007. "On the appropriateness of appropriateness judgments: The case of interferon treatment for melanoma," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 70-78, February.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Paul Dolan & Daniel Kahneman, 2008. "Interpretations Of Utility And Their Implications For The Valuation Of Health," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 215-234, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Afschin Gandjour, 2010. "Theoretical Foundation of Patient v. Population Preferences in Calculating QALYs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(4), pages 57-63, July.
    6. Stein, K & Dyer, M & Crabb, T & Milne, R & Round, A & Ratcliffe, J & Brazier, J, 2006. "An Internet “Value of Health” panel: recruitment, participation and compliance," MPRA Paper 29770, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Don Kenkel, 2006. "WTP- and QALY-Based Approaches to Valuing Health for Policy: Common Ground and Disputed Territory," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(3), pages 419-437, July.
    8. 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.
    9. N J Devlin & P Hansen & P Kind & A H Williams, 2000. "The health state preferences and logistical inconsistencies of New Zealanders: a tale of two tariffs," Working Papers 180chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    10. 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.
    11. Nancy J. Devlin & Paul Hansen & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 2003. "Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations ‐ a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 529-544, July.
    12. Michaël Schwarzinger & Fabrice Carrat & Stéphane Luchini, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question". Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Post-Print inserm-00636179, HAL.
    13. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Culyer, Anthony J. & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H., 2008. "Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 325-338, March.
    14. Huynh, Elisabeth & Coast, Joanna & Rose, John & Kinghorn, Philip & Flynn, Terry, 2017. "Values for the ICECAP-Supportive Care Measure (ICECAP-SCM) for use in economic evaluation at end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 114-128.
    15. Begoña Álvarez & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, 2009. "Patients’ self-interest bias: Empirical evidence from a priority-setting experiment," Working Papers 0903, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    16. Burstrom, Kristina & Johannesson, Magnus & Diderichsen, Finn, 2006. "A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 359-370, May.
    17. Wildman, John & McMeekin, Peter & Grieve, Eleanor & Briggs, Andrew, 2016. "Economic evaluation of integrated new technologies for health and social care: Suggestions for policy makers, users and evaluators," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 141-148.
    18. 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.
    19. Hans-Helmut König & Oliver Günther & Matthias Angermeyer & Christiane Roick, 2009. "Utility Assessment in Patients with Mental Disorders," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 405-419, May.
    20. 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).

    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:sae:medema:v:22:y:2002:i:1:p:27-38. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.