IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v4y2011i4p247-257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimation of Utilities in Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder for Economic Evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Lloyd
  • Paul Hodgkins
  • Rahul Sasane
  • Ron Akehurst
  • Edmund Sonuga-Barke
  • Patrick Fitzgerald
  • Annabel Nixon
  • Haim Erder
  • John Brazier

Abstract

Background: Attempts to estimate the cost effectiveness of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments in the past have relied on classifying ADHD patients as responders or non-responders to treatment. Responder status has been associated with a small gain in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) [or utility, as measured using the generic QOL measure EQ-5D] of 0.06 (on a scale from 0 being dead to 1.0 being full health). Objectives: The goal of the present study was to develop and validate several ADHD-related health states, and to estimate utility values measured amongst the general public for those states and to re-estimate utility values associated with responder status. Methods: Detailed qualitative interview data were collected from 20 young ADHD patients to characterize their HR-QOL. In addition, item-by-item clinical and HR-QOL data from a clinical trial were used to define and describe four health states (normal; borderline to mildly ill; moderately to markedly ill; and severely ill). ADHD experts assessed the content validity of the descriptions. The states were rated by 100 members of the UK general public using the time trade-off (TTO) interview and visual analog scale. Statistical mapping was also undertaken to estimate Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) utilities (i.e. response status) from Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) defined states. The mapping work estimated changes in utilities from study baseline to last visit for patients with a CGI-I score of ≤2 or ≤3. Results: The validity of the four health states developed in this study was supported by in-depth interviews with ADHD experts and patients, and clinical trial data. TTO-derived utilities for the four health states ranged from 0.839 (CGI-S state ‘normal’) to 0.444 (CGI-S state ‘severely ill’). From the mapping work, the change in utility for treatment responders was 0.19 for patients with a CGI-I score of ≤2 and 0.15 for patients with a CGI-I score of ≤3. Conclusions: The present study provides utilities for different severity levels of ADHD estimated in a TTO study. This approach provides a more granular assessment of the impact of ADHD on HR-QOL than binary approaches employed in previous economic analyses. Change in utility for responders and non-responders at different levels of CGI-I was estimated, and thus these utilities may be used to compare health gains of different ADHD interventions. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2011

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Lloyd & Paul Hodgkins & Rahul Sasane & Ron Akehurst & Edmund Sonuga-Barke & Patrick Fitzgerald & Annabel Nixon & Haim Erder & John Brazier, 2011. "Estimation of Utilities in Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder for Economic Evaluations," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 247-257, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:4:y:2011:i:4:p:247-257
    DOI: 10.2165/11592150-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11592150-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11592150-000000000-00000?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. Olga Kostopoulou, 2006. "The Transient Nature of Utilities and Health Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 304-306, July.
    2. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, 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. Louis S. Matza & Kristina S. Boye & David H. Feeny & Lee Bowman & Joseph A. Johnston & Katie D. Stewart & Kelly McDaniel & Jessica Jordan, 2016. "The time horizon matters: results of an exploratory study varying the timeframe in time trade-off and standard gamble utility elicitation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(8), pages 979-990, November.

    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. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2013. "A new axiomatic approach to the evaluation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-523.
    2. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    3. David Mayston, "undated". "Developing a Framework Theory for Assessing the Benefits of Careers Guidance," Discussion Papers 02/08, Department of Economics, University of York.
    4. Islam, M. Kamrul & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Gullberg, Bo & Lindström, Martin & Merlo, Juan, 2008. "Social capital externalities and mortality in Sweden," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 19-42, March.
    5. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    6. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 159, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Kevin Haninger & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Diminishing Willingness to Pay per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year: Valuing Acute Foodborne Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1363-1380, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Stirling Bryan & David Parry, 2002. "Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in health care: an empirical investigation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(5), pages 561-567.
    10. Paolo Angelo Cortesi & Lucia Sara D’Angiolella & Renato Vellucci & Massimo Allegri & Giuseppe Casale & Carlo Favaretti & Flavia Kheiraoui & Giancarlo Cesana & Lorenzo Giovanni Mantovani, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of oral fentanyl formulations for breakthrough cancer pain treatment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-13, June.
    11. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus, 1998. "An experimental test of question framing in health state utility assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 187-193, September.
    12. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
    13. Paul Hanly & Rebecca Maguire & Frances Drummond & Linda Sharp, 2019. "Variation in the methodological approach to productivity cost valuation: the case of prostate cancer," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(9), pages 1399-1408, December.
    14. MORENO-TERNERO, Juan & OSTERDAL, Lars P., 2014. "Normative foundations for equity-sensitive population health evaluation functions," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014031, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    15. Anne Spencer, 2001. "The Implications of Linking Questions within the SG and TTO Methods," Working Papers 438, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    16. José‐Luis Pinto‐Prades & José‐María Abellán‐Perpiñán, 2005. "Measuring the health of populations: the veil of ignorance approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 69-82, January.
    17. Herrera-Araujo, Daniel & Hammitt, James K. & Rheinberger, Christoph M., 2020. "Theoretical bounds on the value of improved health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    18. Johanna Cook & Jeff Richardson & Andrew Street, 1994. "A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: Methodological issues and results," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(3), pages 157-168, May.
    19. Karen Gerard & Gavin Mooney, 1993. "Qaly league tables: Handle with care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 2(1), pages 59-64, April.
    20. Gerdtham, U. -G. & Johannesson, M. & Lundberg, L. & Isacson, D., 1999. "The demand for health: results from new measures of health capital," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 501-521, September.

    More about this item

    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:patien:v:4:y:2011:i:4:p:247-257. 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: 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. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.