IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v37y2017i6p703-714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Naming and Framing†: The Impact of Labeling on Health State Values for Multiple Sclerosis

Author

Listed:
  • Colin Green
  • Elizabeth Goodwin
  • Annie Hawton

Abstract

Introduction. Health state valuation is a key input in many economic evaluations that inform resource allocation across competing healthcare interventions. Empirical evidence has shown that, in preference elicitation surveys, respondents may value a health state differently if they are aware of the condition causing it (‘labeling effects’). This study investigates the impact of including a multiple sclerosis (MS) label for valuation of MS health states. Methods. Health state values for MS were elicited using two internet-based surveys in representative samples of the UK population ( n = 1702; n = 1788). In one survey respondents were not informed that health states were caused by MS. The second survey included a condition label for MS. Surveys were identical in all other ways. Health states were described using a MS-specific eight-dimensional classification system (MSIS-8D), and the time trade-off valuation technique was used. Differences between values for labeled and unlabeled states were assessed using descriptive statistics and multivariate regression methods. Results. Adding a MS condition label had a statistically significant effect on mean health state values, resulting in lower values for labeled MS states v. unlabeled states. The data suggest that the MS label had a more significant effect on values for less severe states, and no significant effect on values for the most severe states. The inclusion of the MS label had a differential impact across the dimensions of the MSIS-8D. Across the MSIS-8D, predicted values ranged from 0.079 to 0.883 for unlabeled states, and 0.066 to 0.861 for labeled states. Conclusion. Differences reported in health state values, using labeled and unlabeled states, demonstrate that condition labels affect the results of valuation studies, and can have important implications in decision-analytic modelling and in economic evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Colin Green & Elizabeth Goodwin & Annie Hawton, 2017. "“Naming and Framing†: The Impact of Labeling on Health State Values for Multiple Sclerosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 703-714, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:6:p:703-714
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X17705637
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X17705637
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X17705637?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. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    2. Elizabeth Goodwin & Colin Green, 2016. "A Systematic Review of the Literature on the Development of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures of Health," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 161-183, April.
    3. John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2010. "Preference‐based condition‐specific measures of health: what happens to cross programme comparability?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 125-129, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    2. Yaling Yang & John E. Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tracey A. Young, 2011. "Estimating a Preference-Based Index for a 5-Dimensional Health State Classification for Asthma Derived from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 281-291, March.
    3. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    4. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    6. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    7. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    10. Zhongliang Zhou & Yu Fang & Zhiying Zhou & Dan Li & Dan Wang & Yanli Li & Li Lu & Jianmin Gao & Gang Chen, 2017. "Assessing Income-Related Health Inequality and Horizontal Inequity in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 241-256, May.
    11. Eliza Lai Yi Wong & Richard Huan Xu & Annie Wai Ling Cheung, 2020. "Health-related quality of life in elderly people with hypertension and the estimation of minimally important difference using EQ-5D-5L in Hong Kong SAR, China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 869-879, August.
    12. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    13. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Anju Keetharuth & Aki Tsuchiya & Clara Mukuria, 2016. "Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 89-104, February.
    14. Louis S. Matza & Katherine J. Kim & Holly Yu & Katherine A. Belden & Antonia F. Chen & Mark Kurd & Bruce Y. Lee & Jason Webb, 2019. "Health state utilities associated with post-surgical Staphylococcus aureus infections," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 819-827, August.
    15. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    16. Richard Cookson & Owen Cotton-Barrett & Matthew Adler & Miqdad Asaria & Toby Ord, 2016. "Years of good life based on income and health: Re-engineering cost-benefit analysis to examine policy impacts on wellbeing and distributive justice," Working Papers 132cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    17. 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.
    18. Louise Longworth & Donna Fountain & Jeshika Singh & Ismail Azzabi & Glynn Owen & Ulf Lundstam & Shaji Sebastian, 2019. "Elicitation of Health-Related Utility in Perianal Fistula in Crohn’s Disease," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(3), pages 339-348, June.
    19. Renske J. Hoefman & Job Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2017. "Measuring Care-Related Quality of Life of Caregivers for Use in Economic Evaluations: CarerQol Tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 469-478, April.
    20. Yan Feng & Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Brendan Mulhern & Ben van Hout, 2018. "New methods for modelling EQ‐5D‐5L value sets: An application to English data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 23-38, January.

    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:37:y:2017:i:6:p:703-714. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.