IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v13y2004i7p733-737.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ-5D valuation set

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Roberts

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

  • Paul Dolan

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

Abstract

The EQ-5D general population valuation set (or 'tariff') is increasingly being used in the evaluation of health care interventions and has been recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) for use in cost-utility analyses of health technologies. To be of use to decision-makers, the health gain implied by changes in health state values must reflect individual preferences. At the simplest level, if State A has a higher mean value than State B, then the majority of people should consider a move from B to A to be a good thing. In this paper, we examine the extent to which this is true by re-analysing data from the general population study used to derive the EQ-5D tariff. We show that, on average, the difference in value between two states has to be as large as 0.20 (on a scale where one represents full and zero represents death) for 70% of respondents to agree with the sign of that difference (never mind its size). Results such as these have important implications for the use of the EQ-5D tariff that has been generated from these data. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Roberts & Paul Dolan, 2004. "To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ-5D valuation set," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(7), pages 733-737.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:7:p:733-737
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.875
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A & Brazier, J & Young, Tracey A., 2007. "Estimating a preference-based single index from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ)," MPRA Paper 29804, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. McNamee, Paul, 2007. "What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(2-3), pages 321-331, December.
    3. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.
    4. Juan M Cabasés & Eduardo Sánchez & Francisco J Vázquez-Polo & Miguel A Negrín & Emilio J Domínguez, 2005. "Self-Perceived Health Status Of Schizophrenic Patients In Spain: An Analysis Of Geographical Differences Using Bayesian Approach," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 0505, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra, revised 2005.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:7:p:733-737. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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 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.

    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.