IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v36y2018i9d10.1007_s40273-018-0670-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Practical Guide to Conducting a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Health State Utility Values

Author

Listed:
  • Stavros Petrou

    (University of Warwick)

  • Joseph Kwon

    (The University of Sheffield)

  • Jason Madan

    (University of Warwick)

Abstract

Economic analysts are increasingly likely to rely on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of health state utility values to inform the parameter inputs of decision-analytic modelling-based economic evaluations. Beyond the context of economic evaluation, evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of health state utility values can be used to inform broader health policy decisions. This paper provides practical guidance on how to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of health state utility values. The paper outlines a number of stages in conducting a systematic review, including identifying the appropriate evidence, study selection, data extraction and presentation, and quality and relevance assessment. The paper outlines three broad approaches that can be used to synthesise multiple estimates of health utilities for a given health state or condition, namely fixed-effect meta-analysis, random-effects meta-analysis and mixed-effects meta-regression. Each approach is illustrated by a synthesis of utility values for a hypothetical decision problem, and software code is provided. The paper highlights a number of methodological issues pertinent to the conduct of meta-analysis or meta-regression. These include the importance of limiting synthesis to ‘comparable’ utility estimates, for example those derived using common utility measurement approaches and sources of valuation; the effects of reliance on limited or poorly reported published data from primary utility assessment studies; the use of aggregate outcomes within analyses; approaches to generating measures of uncertainty; handling of median utility values; challenges surrounding the disentanglement of utility estimates collected serially within the context of prospective observational studies or prospective randomised trials; challenges surrounding the disentanglement of intervention effects; and approaches to measuring model validity. Areas of methodological debate and avenues for future research are highlighted.

Suggested Citation

  • Stavros Petrou & Joseph Kwon & Jason Madan, 2018. "A Practical Guide to Conducting a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Health State Utility Values," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(9), pages 1043-1061, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0670-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0670-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0670-1
    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/s40273-018-0670-1?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. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    2. Mark J. Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Mike Drummond & Chris McCabe, 2006. "Whither trial‐based economic evaluation for health care decision making?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 677-687, July.
    3. Kenneth F Schulz & Douglas G Altman & David Moher & for the CONSORT Group, 2010. "CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-7, March.
    4. Jonathan Karnon, 2017. "Heath State Utility Values for Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 1-3, December.
    5. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.
    6. 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.
    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. Carlos Roberto de Sousa Costa & Paula Ferreira, 2023. "A Review on the Internalization of Externalities in Electricity Generation Expansion Planning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-19, 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. Dyfrig Hughes & Joanna Charles & Dalia Dawoud & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Emily Holmes & Carys Jones & Paul Parham & Catrin Plumpton & Colin Ridyard & Huw Lloyd-Williams & Eifiona Wood & Seow Tien Yeo, 2016. "Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 447-461, May.
    2. Jacob Maxwell & Robert Pryce & Luke B. Wilson, 2022. "The impact of increasing the United Kingdom national minimum wage on self‐reported health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(6), pages 1167-1183, June.
    3. Donna Rowen & Oliver Rivero-Arias & Nancy Devlin & Julie Ratcliffe, 2020. "Review of Valuation Methods of Preference-Based Measures of Health for Economic Evaluation in Child and Adolescent Populations: Where are We Now and Where are We Going?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 325-340, April.
    4. Joseph Kwon & Sung Wook Kim & Wendy J. Ungar & Kate Tsiplova & Jason Madan & Stavros Petrou, 2018. "A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Childhood Health Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(3), pages 277-305, April.
    5. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Kompal Sinha & Munir A. Khan & John Mckie, 2014. "An Instrument For Measuring The Social Willingness To Pay For Health State Improvement," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(7), pages 792-805, July.
    6. Mimmi Åström & Ola Rolfson & Kristina Burström, 2022. "Exploring EQ-5D-Y-3L Experience-Based VAS Values Derived Among Adolescents," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 383-393, May.
    7. Ryan J. Drew & Philip J. Morgan & Frances Kay-Lambkin & Clare E. Collins & Robin Callister & Brian J. Kelly & Vibeke Hansen & Myles D. Young, 2021. "Men’s Perceptions of a Gender-Tailored eHealth Program Targeting Physical and Mental Health: Qualitative Findings from the SHED-IT Recharge Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-18, December.
    8. Giancarlo Romano G, 2013. "Acerca de la condición normativa de la teoría de la decisión racional," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, December.
    9. Michael J. Fell & Alexandra Schneiders & David Shipworth, 2019. "Consumer Demand for Blockchain-Enabled Peer-to-Peer Electricity Trading in the United Kingdom: An Online Survey Experiment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-25, October.
    10. Mara Airoldi & Alec Morton & Jenifer A. E. Smith & Gwyn Bevan, 2014. "STAR—People-Powered Prioritization," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 965-975, November.
    11. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    12. Christian M. Stach & Victor S. Sloan & Thasia G. Woodworth & Brian Kilgallen & Daniel E. Furst, 2019. "Rheumatology Common Toxicity Criteria (RCTC): An Update Reflecting Real-World Use," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 42(12), pages 1499-1506, December.
    13. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    14. Bansback, Nick & Brazier, John & Tsuchiya, Aki & Anis, Aslam, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 306-318.
    15. Stephanie O. Sangalang & Shelley Anne J. Medina & Zheina J. Ottong & Allen Lemuel G. Lemence & Donrey Totanes & John Cedrick Valencia & Patricia Andrea A. Singson & Mikaela Olaguera & Nelissa O. Prado, 2020. "Protocol for a Trial Assessing the Impacts of School-Based WaSH Interventions on Children’s Health Literacy, Handwashing, and Nutrition Status in Low- and Middle-Income Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Chunhu Shi & Jinhui Tian & Dan Ren & Hongli Wei & Lihuan Zhang & Quan Wang & Kehu Yang, 2014. "Methodological Reporting of Randomized Trials in Five Leading Chinese Nursing Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    17. Jeff Round & Annie Hawton, 2017. "Statistical Alchemy: Conceptual Validity and Mapping to Generate Health State Utility Values," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 233-239, December.
    18. Su Keng Tan & Wai Keung Leung & Alexander Tin Hong Tang & Roger A Zwahlen, 2017. "Effects of mandibular setback with or without maxillary advancement osteotomies on pharyngeal airways: An overview of systematic reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, October.
    19. Laura Muñoz-Bermejo & María José González-Becerra & Sabina Barrios-Fernández & Salvador Postigo-Mota & María del Rocío Jerez-Barroso & Juan Agustín Franco Martínez & Belén Suárez-Lantarón & Diego Muño, 2022. "Cost-Effectiveness of the Comprehensive Interdisciplinary Program-Care in Informal Caregivers of People with Alzheimer’s Disease," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-16, November.
    20. Ángel Enrique & Juana Bretón-López & Guadalupe Molinari & Rosa M. Baños & Cristina Botella, 2018. "Efficacy of an adaptation of the Best Possible Self intervention implemented through positive technology: a randomized control trial," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 13(3), pages 671-689, 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:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:9:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0670-1. 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.