IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v3y1994i3p157-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: Methodological issues and results

Author

Listed:
  • Johanna Cook
  • Jeff Richardson
  • Andrew Street

Abstract

The techniques of cost utility analysis (CUA) were used to evaluate the treatment of gallstone disease by open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy and by extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). The application of the techniques in this context raised three methodological questions which are not satisfactorily resolved in the literature. The first is whether an ex ante or ex post perspective is best adopted for the measurement of quality of life (QoL). The second is the method for converting a short term deterioration in QoL followed by full health into QALYs and the reliability of the methods available. The third is the issue of indirect costs which, in the context of a temporary disease state, cannot be easily avoided. The economic evaluation found laparoscopic cholecystectomy to be generally superior than the competitor technologies (entailing lower costs and better outcomes). However, the results were sensitive to assumptions about the perspective for measuring benefits and the inclusion of indirect costs.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:3:y:1994:i:3:p:157-168
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.4730030305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4730030305
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.4730030305?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-563, June.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Culyer, A J, 1989. "The Normative Economics of Health Care Finance and Provision," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 5(1), pages 34-58, Spring.
    5. 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. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    2. Victoria Brennan & Simon Dixon, 2014. "Response to Letter to Editor: Capturing Disutility from Waiting Time," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 421-422, April.
    3. Victoria Brennan & Simon Dixon, 2013. "Incorporating Process Utility into Quality Adjusted Life Years: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(8), pages 677-691, August.
    4. Mirjam Locadia & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Frans J. Oort & Martin H. Prins & Mirjam A. G. Sprangers & Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, 2004. "A Comparison of 3 Valuation Methods for Temporary Health States in Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(6), pages 625-633, November.
    5. Kristina Secnik & Louis S. Matza & Suzi Cottrell & Eric Edgell & Dominic Tilden & Sally Mannix, 2005. "Health State Utilities for Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Based on Parent Preferences in the United Kingdom," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(1), pages 56-70, January.
    6. Kristina Boye & Louis Matza & Kimberly Walter & Kate Brunt & Andrew Palsgrove & Aodan Tynan, 2011. "Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(3), pages 219-230, June.
    7. Richard Abreu Lourenco & Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 347-362, March.
    8. Kurinchi Gurusamy & Edward Wilson & Andrew Burroughs & Brian Davidson, 2012. "Intra-operative vs pre-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 15-29, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Dirksen, Carmen D. & Ament, AndreJ. H. & Go, Peter M. N., 1996. "Diffusion of six surgical endoscopic procedures in the Netherlands. Stimulating and restraining factors," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 91-104, August.
    11. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    12. Uivaroşan Diana & Endres Laura & Tit Mirela & Bungau Simona, 2015. "The Economic Impact Of The Digestive Diseases Across The Eu Member States. The Costs Analysis In Cholecystectomy," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 338-342, July.
    13. Jing Shen & Sarah Hill & David Mott & Matthew Breckons & Luke Vale & Rob Pickard, 2019. "Conducting a Time Trade-Off Study Alongside a Clinical Trial: A Case Study and Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 5-20, March.
    14. Peep F. M. Stalmeier, 2002. "Discrepancies between Chained and Classic Utilities Induced by Anchoring with Occasional Adjustments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1), pages 53-64, February.
    15. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.
    16. J. Shannon Swan & William F. Lawrence & Jessica Roy, 2006. "Process Utility in Breast Biopsy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 347-359, July.
    17. Steven Alberts & Tiffany Yu & Robert Behrens & Lindsay Renfro & Geetika Srivastava & Gamini Soori & Shaker Dakhil & Rex Mowat & John Kuebler & George Kim & Miroslaw Mazurczak & John Hornberger, 2014. "Comparative Economics of a 12-Gene Assay for Predicting Risk of Recurrence in Stage II Colon Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1231-1243, December.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley & Mona Abdalla, 1997. "Using Willingness To Pay To Value Close Substitutes: Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis Revisited," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 145-159, March.
    4. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    5. Christopher Prendergast, 1993. "Rationality, Optimality, and Choice," Rationality and Society, , vol. 5(1), pages 47-57, January.
    6. Finkelshtain, Israel & Feinerman, Eli, 1997. "Framing the Allais paradox as a daily farm decision problem: tests and explanations," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 155-167, January.
    7. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    8. Bruno Frey, 1990. "From paradoxes to social rules, or: How economics repeats itself," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 27-34, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    11. William C. McDaniel & Francis Sistrunk, 1991. "Management Dilemmas and Decisions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(1), pages 21-42, March.
    12. 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.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:462-471 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. 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.
    15. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger, 1989. "Should Social Scientists Care about Choice Anomalies?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 1(1), pages 101-122, July.
    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. Harvey, Michael & Reiche, B. Sebastian & Moeller, Miriam, 2011. "Developing effective global relationships through staffing with inpatriate managers: The role of interpersonal trust," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 150-161, June.
    18. Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua & Gomes, Luiz Flavio Autran Monteiro, 2021. "Modeling multicriteria group decision making as games from enhanced pairwise comparisons," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    19. Gebhard Kirchgässner, 2014. "On Self-Interest and Greed," CREMA Working Paper Series 2014-12, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    20. Gilles Boevi Koumou & Georges Dionne, 2022. "Coherent Diversification Measures in Portfolio Theory: An Axiomatic Foundation," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, October.
    21. Harin, Alexander, 2014. "Problems of utility and prospect theories. A discontinuity of Prelec’s function," MPRA Paper 61027, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:3:y:1994:i:3:p:157-168. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.