IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i1p68-80.html

Comparison of General Population, Patient, and Carer Utility Values for Dementia Health States

Author

Listed:
  • Donna Rowen
  • Brendan Mulhern
  • Sube Banerjee
  • Rhian Tait
  • Caroline Watchurst
  • Sarah C. Smith
  • Tracey A. Young
  • Martin Knapp
  • John E. Brazier

Abstract

Utility values to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for use in cost-utility analyses are usually elicited from members of the general population. Public attitudes and understanding of dementia in particular may mean that values elicited from the general population may differ from patients and carers for dementia health states. This study examines how the population impacts utility values elicited for dementia health states using interviewer-administered time tradeoff valuation of health states defined by the dementia-specific preference-based measures DEMQOL-U (patient-report) and DEMQOL-Proxy-U (carer-report). Eight DEMQOL-U states were valued by 78 members of the UK general population and 71 patients with dementia of mild severity. Eight DEMQOL-Proxy-U states were valued by 77 members of the UK general population and 71 carers of patients with dementia of mild severity. Random-effects generalized least squares regression estimated the impact of population, dementia health state, and respondent sociodemographic characteristics on elicited values, finding that values for dementia health states differed by population and that the difference varied across dementia health states. Patients with dementia and carers of patients with dementia gave systematically lower values than members of the general population that were not due to differences in the sociodemographic characteristics of the populations. Our results suggest that the population used to produce dementia health state values could impact the results of cost-utility analyses and potentially affect resource allocation decisions; yet, currently, only general population values are available for usage.

Suggested Citation

  • Donna Rowen & Brendan Mulhern & Sube Banerjee & Rhian Tait & Caroline Watchurst & Sarah C. Smith & Tracey A. Young & Martin Knapp & John E. Brazier, 2015. "Comparison of General Population, Patient, and Carer Utility Values for Dementia Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 68-80, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:1:p:68-80
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14557178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X14557178
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X14557178?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. Mulhern, B & Smith, SC & Rowen, D & Brazier, JE & Knapp, M & Lamping, DL & Loftus, V & Young, Tracey A. & Howard, RJ & Banerjee, S, 2010. "Improving the measurement of QALYs in dementia: developing patient- and carer-reported health state classification systems using Rasch analysis," MPRA Paper 29948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Dolan, Paul & Roberts, Jennifer, 2002. "To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 919-929, March.
    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. Rowen, Donna & Mukuria, Clara & Bray, Nathan & Carlton, Jill & Longworth, Louise & Meads, David & O'Neill, Ciaran & Shah, Koonal & Yang, Yaling, 2022. "Assessing the comparative feasibility, acceptability and equivalence of videoconference interviews and face-to-face interviews using the time trade-off technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).
    2. Mihir Gandhi & Ravindran Kanesvaran & Mohamad Farid Bin Harunal Rashid & Dawn Qingqing Chong & Wen-Yee Chay & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Richard Norman & Madeleine T. King & Nan Luo, 2024. "Valuation of the EORTC Quality of Life Utility Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) in a Multi-ethnic Asian Setting: How Does Having Cancer Matter?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(12), pages 1413-1425, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Qingqing Chai & Zhihao Yang & Xiaoyan Liu & Di An & Jiangyang Du & Xiumei Ma & Kim Rand & Bin Wu & Nan Luo, 2024. "Valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states from cancer patients’ perspective: a feasibility study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(6), pages 915-924, August.

    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. R. Hoorn & A. Donders & M. Oppe & P. Stalmeier, 2014. "The Better than Dead Method: Feasibility and Interpretation of a Valuation Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 789-799, August.
    2. Lidia Engel & Nick Bansback & Stirling Bryan & Mary M. Doyle-Waters & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2016. "Exclusion Criteria in National Health State Valuation Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(7), pages 798-810, October.
    3. Nicolas A. Menzies & Joshua A. Salomon, 2011. "Non‐monotonicity in the episodic random utility model," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(12), pages 1523-1531, December.
    4. Richard Norman & Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber & Donna Rowen & John E. Brazier & David Cella & A. Simon Pickard & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Dennis Revicki & Madeleine T. King & On behalf of the Eu, 2019. "U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU‐C10D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1385-1401, December.
    5. Kharroubi, Samer & Brazier, John E. & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2007. "Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1242-1252, March.
    6. David Feeny, 2013. "Standardization and Regulatory Guidelines May Inhibit Science and Reduce the Usefulness of Analyses Based on the Application of Preference-Based Measures for Policy Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 316-319, April.
    7. Agata Łaszewska & Ayesha Sajjad & Jan Busschbach & Judit Simon & Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen, 2022. "Conceptual Framework for Optimised Proxy Value Set Selection Through Supra-National Value Set Development for the EQ-5D Instruments," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(12), pages 1221-1234, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Marisa Santos & Monica A. C. T. Cintra & Andrea L. Monteiro & Braulio Santos & Fernando Gusmão-filho & Mônica Viegas Andrade & Kenya Noronha & Luciane N. Cruz & Suzi Camey & Bernardo Tura & Paul Kin, 2016. "Brazilian Valuation of EQ-5D-3L Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 253-263, February.
    10. Mirjam Locadia & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Frans J. Oort & Martin H. Prins & Mirjam A. G. Sprangers & Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, 2004. "A Comparison of 3 Valuation Methods for Temporary Health States in Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(6), pages 625-633, November.
    11. Katharine S. Gries & Dean A. Regier & Scott D. Ramsey & Donald L. Patrick, 2017. "Utility Estimates of Disease-Specific Health States in Prostate Cancer from Three Different Perspectives," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 375-384, June.
    12. Asrul Akmal Shafie & Annushiah Vasan Thakumar, 2020. "Multiplicative modelling of EQ-5D-3L TTO and VAS values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1411-1420, December.
    13. Lukasz Tanajewski & Matthew Franklin & Georgios Gkountouras & Vladislav Berdunov & Rowan H Harwood & Sarah E Goldberg & Lucy E Bradshaw & John R F Gladman & Rachel A Elliott, 2015. "Economic Evaluation of a General Hospital Unit for Older People with Delirium and Dementia (TEAM Randomised Controlled Trial)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Floortje van Nooten & Jan Busschbach & Michel van Agthoven & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2018. "What should we know about the person behind a TTO?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(9), pages 1207-1211, December.
    15. Edward J. D. Webb & Paul Kind & David Meads & Adam Martin, 2021. "Does a health crisis change how we value health?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(10), pages 2547-2560, September.
    16. Mulhern, B & Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Jacoby, A & Marson, T & Snape, D & Hughes, D & Latimer, N & Baker, GA, 2010. "Developing a health state classification system from NEWQOL for epilepsy using classical psychometric techniques and Rasch analysis: a technical report," MPRA Paper 29970, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Gaurav Jyani & Zhihao Yang & Atul Sharma & Aarti Goyal & Elly Stolk & Fredrick Dermawan Purba & Sandeep Grover & Manmeet Kaur & Shankar Prinja, 2023. "Evaluation of EuroQol Valuation Technology (EQ-VT) Designs to Generate National Value Sets: Learnings from the Development of an EQ-5D Value Set for India Using an Extended Design (DEVINE) Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(6), pages 692-703, August.
    18. Sahar Al Shabasy & Fatima Al Sayah & Maggie Abbassi & Samar Farid, 2022. "Determinants of Health Preferences Using Data from the Egyptian EQ-5D-5L Valuation Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(5), pages 589-598, September.
    19. Stefan A. Lipman & Brigitte A. B. Essers & Aureliano P. Finch & Ayesha Sajjad & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Bram Roudijk, 2022. "In a Child’s Shoes: Composite Time Trade-Off Valuations for EQ-5D-Y-3L with Different Proxy Perspectives," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 181-192, December.
    20. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Donna Rowen, 2012. "Methods for Developing Preference-based Measures of Health," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:1:p:68-80. 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.