IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i6p699-707.html

Estimating a Preference-Based Single Index Measuring the Quality-of-Life Impact of Self-Management for Diabetes

Author

Listed:
  • Donna Rowen

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Alexander Labeit

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
    Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK)

  • Katherine Stevens

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Jackie Elliott

    (Academic Unit of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Oncology & Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Brendan Mulhern

    (Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia)

  • Jill Carlton

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Hasan Basarir

    (RTI Health Solutions, Manchester, UK)

  • John Brazier

    (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

Abstract

Objective. Self-management is becoming increasingly important in diabetes but is neglected in conventional preference-based measures. The objective of this paper was to generate health state utility values for a novel classification system measuring the quality-of-life impact of self-management for diabetes, which can be used to generate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Methods. A large online survey was conducted using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), with duration as an additional attribute, on members of the UK general population ( n = 1,493) to elicit values for health (social limitations, mood, vitality, hypoglycaemia) and non-health (stress, hassle, control, support) aspects of self-management in diabetes. The data were modelled using a conditional fixed-effects logit model and utility estimates were anchored on the one to zero (full health to dead) scale. Results. The model produced significant and consistent coefficients, with one logical inconsistency and 3 insignificant coefficients for the milder levels of some attributes. The anchored utilities ranged from 1 for the best state to −0.029 for the worst state (meaning worse than dead) defined by the classification system. Conclusion. The results presented here can potentially be used to generate utility values capturing the day to day impact of interventions in diabetes on both health and self-management. These utility values can potentially be used to generate QALYs for economic models of the cost-effectiveness of interventions in diabetes.

Suggested Citation

  • Donna Rowen & Alexander Labeit & Katherine Stevens & Jackie Elliott & Brendan Mulhern & Jill Carlton & Hasan Basarir & John Brazier, 2018. "Estimating a Preference-Based Single Index Measuring the Quality-of-Life Impact of Self-Management for Diabetes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 699-707, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:699-707
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18784291
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18784291
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18784291?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. Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "A Pilot Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Preferences for EQ-5D-5L Health States," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 287-298, June.
    3. Anna Månsdotter & Björn Ekman & Inna Feldman & Lars Hagberg & Anna-Karin Hurtig & Lars Lindholm, 2017. "We Propose a Novel Measure for Social Welfare and Public Health: Capability-Adjusted Life-Years, CALYs," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 437-440, August.
    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. Marcel F. Jonker & Richard Norman, 2022. "Not all respondents use a multiplicative utility function in choice experiments for health state valuations, which should be reflected in the elicitation format (or statistical analysis)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 431-439, February.
    2. Marcel F. Jonker & Arthur E. Attema & Bas Donkers & Elly A. Stolk & Matthijs M. Versteegh, 2017. "Are Health State Valuations from the General Public Biased? A Test of Health State Reference Dependency Using Self‐assessed Health and an Efficient Discrete Choice Experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1534-1547, December.
    3. 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).
    4. Arne Risa Hole & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2016. "Response Patterns in Health State Valuation Using Endogenous Attribute Attendance and Latent Class Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 212-224, February.
    5. Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney & John Brazier & Leonie Burgess & Paula Cronin & Madeleine King & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street, 2014. "Valuing SF-6D Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 773-786, August.
    6. Giancarlo Romano G, 2013. "Acerca de la condición normativa de la teoría de la decisión racional," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 306-318.
    10. Jeff Round & Annie Hawton, 2017. "Statistical Alchemy: Conceptual Validity and Mapping to Generate Health State Utility Values," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 233-239, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Richard Norman & Brendan Mulhern & Emily Lancsar & Paula Lorgelly & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2023. "The Use of a Discrete Choice Experiment Including Both Duration and Dead for the Development of an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 427-438, April.
    13. Michael Falk Hvidberg & Mónica Hernández Alava, 2023. "Catalogues of EQ-5D-3L Health-Related Quality of Life Scores for 199 Chronic Conditions and Health Risks for Use in the UK and the USA," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(10), pages 1287-1388, October.
    14. Paul Grootendorst, 2009. "Patents, Public-Private Partnerships or Prizes – How should we support pharmaceutical innovation?," Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population Research Papers 250, McMaster University.
    15. Richard Cookson & Ieva Skarda & Owen Cotton‐Barratt & Matthew Adler & Miqdad Asaria & Toby Ord, 2021. "Quality adjusted life years based on health and consumption: A summary wellbeing measure for cross‐sectoral economic evaluation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 70-85, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Julie Ratcliffe & Terry Flynn & Frances Terlich & Katherine Stevens & John Brazier & Michael Sawyer, 2012. "Developing Adolescent-Specific Health State Values for Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 713-727, August.
    19. Knott, R. & Lorgelly, P. & Black, N. & Hollingsworth, B., 2016. "Differential item functioning in the EQ-5D: An exploratory analysis using anchoring vignettes," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 16/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    20. Jing Wu & Shitong Xie & Xiaoning He & Gang Chen & Gengliang Bai & Da Feng & Ming Hu & Jie Jiang & Xiaohui Wang & Hongyan Wu & Qunhong Wu & John E. Brazier, 2021. "Valuation of SF-6Dv2 Health States in China Using Time Trade-off and Discrete-Choice Experiment with a Duration Dimension," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 521-535, May.

    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:38:y:2018:i:6:p:699-707. 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.