IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v35y2017i1d10.1007_s40273-017-0549-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recommended Methods for the Collection of Health State Utility Value Evidence in Clinical Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Roberta Ara

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

  • John Brazier

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

  • Tracey Young

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

Abstract

A conceptual model framework and an initial literature review are invaluable when considering what health state utility values (HSUVs) are required to populate health states in decision models. They are the recommended starting point early within a research and development programme, and before development of phase III trial protocols. While clinical trials can provide an opportunity to collect the required evidence, their appropriateness should be reviewed against the requirements of the model structure taking into account population characteristics, time horizon and frequency of clinical events. Alternative sources such as observational studies or registries may be more appropriate when evidence describing changes in HSUVs over time or rare clinical events is required. Phase IV clinical studies may provide the opportunity to collect additional longitudinal real-world evidence. Aspects to consider when designing the collection of the evidence include patient and investigator burden, whom to ask, the representativeness of the population, the exact definitions of health states within the economic model, the timing of data collection, sample size, and mode of administration. Missing data can be an issue, particularly in longitudinal studies, and it is important to determine whether the missing data will bias inferences from analyses. For example, respondents may fail to complete follow-up questionnaires because of a relapse or the severity of their condition. The decision on the preferred study type and the particular quality of life measure should be informed by any evidence currently available in the literature, the design of data collection, and the exact requirements of the model that will be used to support resource allocation decisions (e.g. reimbursement).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0549-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0549-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-017-0549-6
    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/s40273-017-0549-6?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. 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.
    2. Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Clara Mukuria, 2017. "The Use of Mapping to Estimate Health State Utility Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 57-66, December.
    3. Bernie J. O'Brien & Marian Spath & Gordon Blackhouse & J.L. Severens & Paul Dorian & John Brazier, 2003. "A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF‐6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 975-981, November.
    4. Philip M. Clarke & Chris Ryan, 2006. "Self‐reported health: reliability and consequences for health inequality measurement," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 645-652, June.
    5. Maria Alva & Alastair Gray & Borislava Mihaylova & Philip Clarke, 2014. "The Effect Of Diabetes Complications On Health‐Related Quality Of Life: The Importance Of Longitudinal Data To Address Patient Heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 487-500, April.
    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. 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. 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.
    3. Bautista, María Angélica & González, Felipe & Martinez, Luis R. & Muñoz, Pablo & Prem, Mounu, 2020. "Does Higher Education Reduce Mortality? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Chile," SocArXiv 5s2px, Center for Open Science.
    4. Aileen R. Neilson & Gareth T. Jones & Gary J. Macfarlane & Ejaz MI Pathan & Paul McNamee, 2022. "Generating EQ-5D-5L health utility scores from BASDAI and BASFI: a mapping study in patients with axial spondyloarthritis using longitudinal UK registry data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(8), pages 1357-1369, November.
    5. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Felipe Rivera, 2017. "Health opportunities in Colombia," Lecturas de Economía, Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Economía, issue 87, pages 125-164, Julio - D.
    7. Davillas, Apostolos & de Oliveira, Victor Hugo & Jones, Andrew M., 2023. "Is inconsistent reporting of self-assessed health persistent and systematic? Evidence from the UKHLS," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    8. Muhammad Irfan & Michael P. Cameron & Gazi Hassan, 2023. "The Causal Impact of Solid Fuel Use on Mortality A Cross- Country Panel Analysis," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 13(1), pages 144-153, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Black, Nicole & Johnston, David W. & Suziedelyte, Agne, 2017. "Justification bias in self-reported disability: New evidence from panel data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 124-134.
    11. Chen, Linkun & Clarke, Philip M. & Petrie, Dennis J. & Staub, Kevin E., 2021. "The effects of self-assessed health: Dealing with and understanding misclassification bias," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    12. 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.
    13. David Feeny, 2012. "The Multi-attribute Utility Approach to Assessing Health-related Quality of Life," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 36, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Kajal Lahiri & Zulkarnain Pulungan, 2006. "Health Inequality and Its Determinants in New York," Discussion Papers 06-03, University at Albany, SUNY, Department of Economics.
    15. Yu shin Park & Soo Young Kim & Eun-Cheol Park & Sung-In Jang, 2022. "Screening for Diabetes Complications during the COVID-19 Outbreak in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-12, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Liam Delaney & Patrick G. Wall & Fearghal O'hAodha, 2007. "Social capital and self-rated health in the Republic of Ireland : evidence from the European Social Survey," Open Access publications 10197/576, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    18. 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.
    19. Kristian Bolin & Daniel Hedblom & Anna Lindgren & Bjorn Lindgren, 2010. "Asymmetric Information and the Demand for Voluntary Health Insurance in Europe," NBER Working Papers 15689, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Juergen Jung, 2022. "Estimating transition probabilities between health states using US longitudinal survey data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 901-943, August.

    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_s40273-017-0549-6. 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.