IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i1p21-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Utility Analysis When Not Everyone Wants the Treatment: Modeling Split-Choice Bias

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Lilford

    (Department of Public Health & Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom, r.j.lilford@bham.ac.uk)

  • Alan Girling

    (Department of Public Health & Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom)

  • David Braunholtz

    (University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom)

  • Wayne Gillett

    (University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand)

  • Jason Gordon

    (Department of Public Health & Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom)

  • Celia A. Brown

    (Department of Public Health & Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom)

  • Andrew Stevens

    (Department of Public Health & Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom)

Abstract

Not all clinically eligible patients will necessarily accept a new treatment. Cost-utility analysis recognizes this by multiplying the mean incremental expected utility (EU) by the participation rate to obtain the utility gain per head. However, the mean EU gain over all patients in a defined clinical category is traditionally used as a proxy for the mean EU gain over the subpopulation of acceptors. Even for clinically identical patients, this may lead to a biased assessment of total benefit because a patient motivated to accept the new treatment is likely to value its effects more favorably than a patient who declines. An analysis that ignores this tendency will be biased toward an underestimate of true benefits of a health technology (HT). The extent of this bias is described within a qualityadjusted life year-based utility model for a population of clinically indistinguishable patients who differ with respect to the values that they place on the possible health outcomes of an HT. The size of the bias is sensitive to the proportion of patients who accept the treatment, under both deterministic and probabilistic models of individual decision making. In all cases in which decision making is correlated with personal utility gain, the bias rises steeply as the proportion of acceptors declines.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Lilford & Alan Girling & David Braunholtz & Wayne Gillett & Jason Gordon & Celia A. Brown & Andrew Stevens, 2007. "Cost-Utility Analysis When Not Everyone Wants the Treatment: Modeling Split-Choice Bias," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(1), pages 21-26, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:1:p:21-26
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06297099
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06297099
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06297099?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
    ---><---

    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:27:y:2007:i:1:p:21-26. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.