IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i3p334-342.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing Health: Does Enriching a Scenario Lead to Higher Utilities?

Author

Listed:
  • Yvette Peeters

    (Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden, The Netherlands, y.peeters@lumc.nl)

  • Anne M. Stiggelbout

    (Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Objectives . Patients have been found to value their own experienced health state higher than an investigator-constructed scenario of that health state. The aim of this study was to investigate if patients value their own experienced health state higher than a standard EQ-5D scenario of their health state and if ``enriching'' this scenario by adding individualized attributes reduces the differences between experienced health and the scenario. Methods . Face-to-face interviews were held with 129 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Patients were asked to value in a time tradeoff their own experienced health; 6 standard EQ-5D scenarios, of which the 5th (untold to them) represented their own health state; and a standard EQ-5D scenario of their health state (identified as such) enriched with individual attributes. Results. The own experienced health state was not valued differently from the own standard EQ-5D state and was lower compared to the own enriched EQ-5D state of that same health state. An interaction effect was found for health status. Patients with better health did not report different values for their own experienced health compared with their own standard EQ-5D description; their own experienced state was rated lower than their own enriched EQ-5D description. Patients with poor health valued all 3 health states similarly. Surprisingly, utilities for scenarios enriched with exclusively negative individual attributes were not lower than those for the own standard EQ-5D description. Conclusion. The hypothesis that disparities in valuation can be attributed to EQ-5D description being too sparse was not confirmed.

Suggested Citation

  • Yvette Peeters & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2009. "Valuing Health: Does Enriching a Scenario Lead to Higher Utilities?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 334-342, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:3:p:334-342
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08329343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08329343
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08329343?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. Daniel Polsky & Richard J. Willke & Karen Scott & Kevin A. Schulman & Henry A. Glick, 2001. "A comparison of scoring weights for the EuroQol© derived from patients and the general public," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 27-37, January.
    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. Spencer, Anne & Rivero-Arias, Oliver & Wong, Ruth & Tsuchiya, Aki & Bleichrodt, Han & Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor & Norman, Richard & Lloyd, Andrew & Clarke, Philip, 2022. "The QALY at 50: One story many voices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    2. Arthur Attema & Yvette Edelaar-Peeters & Matthijs Versteegh & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 53-64, July.

    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. 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.
    2. Thomas Hammerschmidt & Hans-Peter Zeitler & Markus Gulich & Reiner Leidl, 2004. "A Comparison of Different Strategies to Collect Standard Gamble Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(5), pages 493-503, October.
    3. Darrell J. Gaskin & Kevin D. Frick, 2008. "Race and Ethnic Disparities in Valuing Health," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 12-20, January.
    4. Joseph T. King Jr & Joel Tsevat & Mark S. Roberts, 2009. "Impact of the Scale Upper Anchor on Health State Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 257-266, March.
    5. Julie Sturza, 2010. "A Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility Values for Lung Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 685-693, November.
    6. Eduardo Sánchez‐Iriso & Maria Errea Rodríguez & Juan Manuel Cabasés Hita, 2019. "Valuing health using EQ‐5D: The impact of chronic diseases on the stock of health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1402-1417, December.
    7. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    8. 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.

    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:29:y:2009:i:3:p:334-342. 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.