IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v21y2020i7d10.1007_s10198-020-01196-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments

Author

Listed:
  • Bruno Casal

    (University of A Coruña, Campus de Elviña)

  • Eva Rodríguez-Míguez

    (University of Vigo, Campus As Lagoas-Marcosende)

  • Berta Rivera

    (University of A Coruña, Campus de Elviña)

Abstract

Objective Drug and/or alcohol dependence (DAD) generates substantial costs to society. One of the main consequences of DAD is its negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The main objective of this study is to analyse the impact of using EQ-5D-5L, SF-6DSG (SF-6D using standard-gamble as the preference-eliciting method) and SF-6DPG (SF-6D using a paired-gamble method), to estimate the HRQoL burden, attributable to DAD, within the cost-of-illness framework. Methods A convenience sample of 109 patients with a diagnosis of substance use disorder was recruited. SF-6D and EQ-5D-5L were administered and then the utility scores were computed. The impact of employing different instruments to estimate the HRQoL burden was assessed by comparing the utility scores of patients and general population after controlling for sex and age through regression analysis. The analysis was reproduced for two subgroups of severity. Results All instruments detect that DAD significantly affects the HRQoL. However, the estimated impact changes, according to the instrument used, whose pattern varies by severity group. Nonetheless, regardless of severity, SF-6DPG always estimates a higher or equal DAD burden than the other instruments considered. These results are compatible with the presence of the floor effect in SF-6DSG, the ceiling effect in EQ-ED-5L, and a smaller presence of both biases in SF-6DPG. Conclusions The SF-6DPG instrument emerges as a good candidate to avoid under-estimating intangible costs within the cost-of-illness framework. However, further research is needed to assess the validity of our results in the context of other health problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Bruno Casal & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Berta Rivera, 2020. "Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1039-1048, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01196-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-020-01196-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-020-01196-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-020-01196-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark McCord & Richard de Neufville, 1986. ""Lottery Equivalents": Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 56-60, January.
    2. Muennig, P. & Lubetkin, E. & Jia, H. & Franks, P., 2006. "Gender and the burden of disease attributable to obesity," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(9), pages 1662-1668.
    3. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    4. Peter Wakker & Daniel Deneffe, 1996. "Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities When Probabilities Are Distorted or Unknown," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(8), pages 1131-1150, August.
    5. Jacinto Nogueira & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, 2015. "Using the SF-6D to measure the impact of alcohol dependence on health-related quality of life," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 347-356, May.
    6. Fan Yang & Titus Lau & Evan Lee & A. Vathsala & Kee Chia & Nan Luo, 2015. "Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 1019-1026, December.
    7. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Aki Tsuchiya & Jan Busschbach, 2004. "A comparison of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D across seven patient groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 873-884, September.
    8. Louise Longworth & Stirling Bryan, 2003. "An empirical comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D in liver transplant patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1061-1067, December.
    9. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    10. David G. T. Whitehurst & Stirling Bryan & Martyn Lewis, 2011. "Systematic Review and Empirical Comparison of Contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D Group Mean Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 34-44, November.
    11. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    12. Petrie, Dennis & Doran, Chris & Shakeshaft, Anthony & Sanson-Fisher, Rob, 2008. "The relationship between alcohol consumption and self-reported health status using the EQ5D: Evidence from rural Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1717-1726, December.
    13. Torrance, George W., 1976. "Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 129-136.
    14. José María Abellán Perpiñán & Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez & Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & Ildefonso Méndez, 2012. "Lowering The ‘Floor’ Of The Sf‐6d Scoring Algorithm Using A Lottery Equivalent Method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(11), pages 1271-1285, November.
    15. Jeff Richardson & Munir A. Khan & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell, 2015. "Comparing and Explaining Differences in the Magnitude, Content, and Sensitivity of Utilities Predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D Multiattribute Utility Instruments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 276-291, April.
    16. Johan Jarl & Pia Johansson & Antonina Eriksson & Mimmi Eriksson & Ulf-G. Gerdtham & Örjan Hemström & Klara Selin & Leif Lenke & Mats Ramstedt & Robin Room, 2008. "The societal cost of alcohol consumption: an estimation of the economic and human cost including health effects in Sweden, 2002," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(4), pages 351-360, November.
    17. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    18. Tsuchiya, Aki & Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer, 2006. "Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 334-346, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 7th September 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-09-07 11:00:07

    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. Jacinto Nogueira & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez, 2015. "Using the SF-6D to measure the impact of alcohol dependence on health-related quality of life," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 347-356, May.
    2. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    3. Richard Huan Xu & Dong Dong & Nan Luo & Eliza Lai-Yi Wong & Yushan Wu & Siyue Yu & Renchi Yang & Junshuai Liu & Huiqin Yuan & Shuyang Zhang, 2021. "Evaluating the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D among patients with haemophilia," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(4), pages 547-557, June.
    4. José María Abellán Perpiñán & Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez & Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & Ildefonso Méndez, 2012. "Lowering The ‘Floor’ Of The Sf‐6d Scoring Algorithm Using A Lottery Equivalent Method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(11), pages 1271-1285, November.
    5. Nick Kontodimopoulos & Michalis Argiriou & Nikolaos Theakos & Dimitris Niakas, 2011. "The impact of disease severity on EQ-5D and SF-6D utility discrepancies in chronic heart failure," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(4), pages 383-391, August.
    6. Garry Barton & Tracey Sach & Michael Doherty & Anthony Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Kenneth Muir, 2008. "An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index , SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 237-249, August.
    7. Richard Grieve & Marina Grishchenko & John Cairns, 2009. "SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(1), pages 15-23, February.
    8. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & Paula Ferrara & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2020. "Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, and comparison of their psychometric properties in a spinal postoperative Spanish population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 649-662, June.
    9. L. M. Lamers & C. A. M. Bouwmans & A. van Straten & M. C. H. Donker & L. Hakkaart, 2006. "Comparison of EQ‐5D and SF‐6D utilities in mental health patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1229-1236, November.
    10. Silvia Garrido & Ildefonso Méndez & José-María Abellán, 2013. "Analysing the Simultaneous Relationship Between Life Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 1813-1838, December.
    11. Nick Kontodimopoulos & Evelina Pappa & Zinovia Chadjiapostolou & Eleni Arvanitaki & Angelos Papadopoulos & Dimitris Niakas, 2012. "Comparing the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and 15D utilities to the specific effect of diabetic complications," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(1), pages 111-120, February.
    12. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Fan Yang & Nancy Devlin & Nan Luo, 2019. "Impact of mapped EQ-5D utilities on cost-effectiveness analysis: in the case of dialysis treatments," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 99-105, February.
    15. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    16. Fan Yang & Titus Lau & Evan Lee & A. Vathsala & Kee Chia & Nan Luo, 2015. "Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD)," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 1019-1026, December.
    17. Kontodimopoulos, Nick & Niakas, Dimitris, 2008. "An estimate of lifelong costs and QALYs in renal replacement therapy based on patients' life expectancy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 85-96, April.
    18. Diecidue, E. & Schmidt, U. & Wakker, P.P., 2000. "A Theory of the Gambling Effect," Discussion Paper 2000-75, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    19. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    20. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EQ-5D-5L; SF-6D; Paired-gamble; Substance dependence; Intangible cost;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I30 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General

    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:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-020-01196-7. 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: http://www.springer.com .

    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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.