IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v35y2017i1d10.1007_s40273-017-0546-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Donna Rowen

    (University of Sheffield)

  • John Brazier

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Roberta Ara

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Ismail Azzabi Zouraq

    (Takeda Pharmaceuticals International AG)

Abstract

A condition-specific preference-based measure (CSPBM) is a measure of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) that is specific to a certain condition or disease and that can be used to obtain the quality adjustment weight of the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for use in economic models. This article provides an overview of the role and the development of CSPBMs, and presents a description of existing CSPBMs in the literature. The article also provides an overview of the psychometric properties of CSPBMs in comparison with generic preference-based measures (generic PBMs), and considers the advantages and disadvantages of CSPBMs in comparison with generic PBMs. CSPBMs typically include dimensions that are important for that condition but may not be important across all patient groups. There are a large number of CSPBMs across a wide range of conditions, and these vary from covering a wide range of dimensions to more symptomatic or uni-dimensional measures. Psychometric evidence is limited but suggests that CSPBMs offer an advantage in more accurate measurement of milder health states. The mean change and standard deviation can differ for CSPBMs and generic PBMs, and this may impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CSPBMs have a useful role in HTA where a generic PBM is not appropriate, sensitive or responsive. However, due to issues of comparability across different patient groups and interventions, their usage in health technology assessment is often limited to conditions where it is inappropriate to use a generic PBM or sensitivity analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Ismail Azzabi Zouraq, 2017. "The Role of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures in Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 33-41, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0546-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0546-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-017-0546-9
    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/s40273-017-0546-9?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. Julie Ratcliffe & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tara Symonds & Martin Brown, 2009. "Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference‐based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1261-1276, November.
    2. John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Helene Chevrou-Severac, 2017. "A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 21-31, December.
    3. Donna Rowen & Ismail Azzabi Zouraq & Helene Chevrou-Severac & Ben Hout, 2017. "International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 11-19, December.
    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. Roberta Ara & John Brazier & Tessa Peasgood & Suzy Paisley, 2017. "The Identification, Review and Synthesis of Health State Utility Values from the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 43-55, December.
    2. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Richard Norman & Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber & Donna Rowen & John E. Brazier & David Cella & A. Simon Pickard & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney & Dennis Revicki & Madeleine T. King & On behalf of the Eu, 2019. "U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU‐C10D," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1385-1401, December.
    4. Samer A. Kharroubi & Donna Rowen, 2019. "Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to select a smaller sample of health states?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 245-255, March.
    5. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh, 2021. "Bayesian modeling of health state preferences: could borrowing strength from existing countries’ valuations produce better estimates," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 773-788, July.
    6. Koonal K. Shah & Bryan Bennett & Andrew Lenny & Louise Longworth & John E. Brazier & Mark Oppe & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "Adapting preference-based utility measures to capture the impact of cancer treatment-related symptoms," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1301-1309, November.
    7. Madeleine T. King & Rosalie Viney & A. Simon Pickard & Donna Rowen & Neil K. Aaronson & John E. Brazier & David Cella & Daniel S. J. Costa & Peter M. Fayers & Georg Kemmler & Helen McTaggart-Cowen & R, 2018. "Australian Utility Weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 225-238, February.

    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. Jonathan Karnon, 2017. "Heath State Utility Values for Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 1-3, December.
    2. Juan Ramos-Goñi & Oliver Rivero-Arias & María Errea & Elly Stolk & Michael Herdman & Juan Cabasés, 2013. "Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 33-42, July.
    3. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. 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.
    5. Paul F M Krabbe, 2013. "A Generalized Measurement Model to Quantify Health: The Multi-Attribute Preference Response Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-12, November.
    6. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    7. Asrul Akmal Shafie & Annushiah Vasan Thakumar, 2020. "Multiplicative modelling of EQ-5D-3L TTO and VAS values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1411-1420, December.
    8. Nathan S. McClure & Mike Paulden & Arto Ohinmaa & Jeffrey A. Johnson, 2021. "Modifying the quality-adjusted life year calculation to account for meaningful change in health-related quality of life: insights from a pragmatic clinical trial," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1441-1451, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Satar Rezaei & Abraha Woldemichael & Sina Ahmadi & Amjad Mohamadi Bolbanabad & Farman Zahir Abdullah & Bakhtiar Piroozi, 2021. "Comparing the properties of the EQ‐5D‐5L and EQ‐5D‐3L in general population in Iran," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 1613-1625, September.
    11. Luciana Scalone & Peep Stalmeier & Silvano Milani & Paul Krabbe, 2015. "Values for health states with different life durations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(9), pages 917-925, December.
    12. Roberta Ara & John Brazier & Tracey Young, 2017. "Recommended Methods for the Collection of Health State Utility Value Evidence in Clinical Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 67-75, December.
    13. Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman & John Brazier & Paula Cronin & Madeleine T. King & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street, 2014. "An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment To Value Eq‐5d Health States," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(6), pages 729-742, June.
    14. Tonya Moen Hansen & Knut Stavem & Kim Rand, 2023. "Completing the time trade-off with respondents who are older, in poorer health or with an immigrant background in an EQ-5D-5L valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 877-884, August.
    15. Hani Dimassi & Soumana C. Nasser & Aline Issa & Sarine S. Adrian & Bassima Hazimeh, 2021. "Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Health Conditions in Lebanese Community Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-12, August.
    16. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    17. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    18. Yuanyuan Gu & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2014. "Estimating Health State Utility Values From Discrete Choice Experiments—A Qaly Space Model Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 1098-1114, September.
    19. Katherine Stevens, 2012. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(8), pages 729-747, August.
    20. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & Deborah J. Street & Rosalie Viney, 2019. "One Method, Many Methodological Choices: A Structured Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments for Health State Valuation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 29-43, January.

    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:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0546-9. 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.