IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i6p704-716.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exclusion Criteria as Measurements II: Effects on Utility Functions

Author

Listed:
  • Barry Dewitt

    (Department of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Baruch Fischhoff

    (Department of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Institute for Politics and Strategy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Alexander L. Davis

    (Department of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Stephen B. Broomell

    (Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Mark S. Roberts

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Department of Health Policy and Management, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Janel Hanmer

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

Abstract

Background. Researchers often justify excluding some responses in studies eliciting valuations of health states as not representing respondents’ true preferences. Here, we examine the effects of applying 8 common exclusion criteria on societal utility estimates. Setting. An online survey of a US nationally representative sample ( N = 1164) used the standard gamble method to elicit preferences for health states defined by 7 health domains from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS ® ). Methods. We estimate the impacts of applying 8 commonly used exclusion criteria on mean utility values for each domain, using beta regression, a form of analysis suited to double-bounded scales, such as utility. Results. Exclusion criteria have varied effects on the utility functions for the different PROMIS health domains. As a result, applying those criteria would have varied effects on the value of treatments (and side effects) that change health status on those domains. Limitations. Although our method could be applied to any health utility judgments, the present estimates reflect the features of the study that produced them. Those features include the selected health domains, standard gamble method, and an online format that excluded some groups (e.g., visually impaired and illiterate individuals). We also examined only a subset of all possible exclusion criteria, selected to represent the space of possibilities, as characterized in a companion article. Conclusions. Exclusion criteria can affect estimates of the societal utility of health states. We use those effects, in conjunction with the results of the companion article, to make suggestions for selecting exclusion criteria in future studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Barry Dewitt & Baruch Fischhoff & Alexander L. Davis & Stephen B. Broomell & Mark S. Roberts & Janel Hanmer, 2019. "Exclusion Criteria as Measurements II: Effects on Utility Functions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(6), pages 704-716, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:6:p:704-716
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19862542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19862542
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19862542?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. Barry Dewitt & Baruch Fischhoff & Alexander L. Davis & Stephen B. Broomell & Mark S. Roberts & Janel Hanmer, 2019. "Exclusion Criteria as Measurements I: Identifying Invalid Responses," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(6), pages 693-703, August.
    2. W Furlong & D Feeny & G Torrance & C Goldsmith & S DePauw & Z Zhu & M Denton & M Boyle, 1998. "Multiplicative Multi-Attribute Utility Function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: A Technical Report," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1998-11, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    3. Nancy J. Devlin & Paul Hansen & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 2003. "Logical inconsistencies in survey respondents' health state valuations ‐ a methodological challenge for estimating social tariffs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 529-544, July.
    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. Carmen Herrero Blanco & Juan D. Moreno Ternero, 2002. "Economic Evaluation Of Newborn Hearing Screening Procedures," Working Papers. Serie AD 2002-06, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    2. Monali S Malvankar-Mehta & Yufeng Nancy Chen & Sangita Patel & Angela Pui-Kei Leung & Man Mohan Merchea & William G Hodge, 2015. "Immediate versus Delayed Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    3. Markian Pahuta & Aaron Frombach & Emile Hashem & Stewart Spence & Christina Sun & Eugene K. Wai & Joel Werier & Carl Walraven & Doug Coyle, 2019. "The Psychometric Properties of a Self-Administered, Open-Source Module for Valuing Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Utilities," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 197-204, June.
    4. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    5. Irina Cleemput, 2010. "A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 205-213, April.
    6. Mihir Gandhi & Marcus Ang & Kelvin Teo & Chee Wai Wong & Yvonne Chung-Hsi Wei & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Mathieu F. Janssen & Nan Luo, 2020. "A vision ‘bolt-on’ increases the responsiveness of EQ-5D: preliminary evidence from a study of cataract surgery," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 501-511, June.
    7. Stengos, Thanasis & Thompson, Brennan S., 2012. "Testing for bivariate stochastic dominance using inequality restrictions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 60-62.
    8. Julie Chevalier & Gérard Pouvourville, 2013. "Valuing EQ-5D using Time Trade-Off in France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 57-66, February.
    9. Dionne, Georges & Lebeau, Martin, 2010. "Le calcul de la valeur statistique d’une vie humaine," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 86(4), pages 487-530, décembre.
    10. Emmanuelle Piérard, 2016. "The effect of health care expenditures on self-rated health status and the Health Utility Index: Evidence from Canada," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, March.
    11. Nancy J. Devlin & Koonal K. Shah & Brendan J. Mulhern & Krystallia Pantiri & Ben van Hout, 2019. "A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 257-270, March.
    12. Joan Costa-Font & Frank A. Cowell, 2022. "The measurement of health inequalities: does status matter?," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 20(2), pages 299-325, June.
    13. Barry Dewitt & Alexander Davis & Baruch Fischhoff & Janel Hanmer, 2017. "An Approach to Reconciling Competing Ethical Principles in Aggregating Heterogeneous Health Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 647-656, August.
    14. Franz Ombler & Michael Albert & Paul Hansen, 2017. "The true significance of ‘high’ correlations between EQ-5D value sets," Working Papers 1704, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2017.
    15. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    16. Jorgen Lauridsen & Terkel Christiansen & Unto Häkkinen, 2004. "Measuring inequality in self‐reported health—discussion of a recently suggested approach using Finnish data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(7), pages 725-732, July.
    17. Nan Luo & Qinan Wang & David Feeny & Geraldine Chen & Shu-Chuen Li & Julian Thumboo, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Health Utilities Index Mark 3 Health States: A Study of Feasibility and Preference Differences among Ethnic Groups in Singapore," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(1), pages 61-70, January.
    18. Bleichrodt, Han & Herrero, Carmen & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2002. "A proposal to solve the comparability problem in cost-utility analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 397-403, May.
    19. Krupnick, Alan & Taylor, Michael & Batz, Michael & Hoffmann, Sandra & Tick, Jody & Morris, Glenn & Sherman, Diane, 2004. "Identifying the Most Significant Microbiological Foodborne Hazards to Public Health: A New Risk Ranking Model," RFF Working Paper Series dp-frsc-dp-01, Resources for the Future.
    20. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.

    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:39:y:2019:i:6:p:704-716. 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.