IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v9y2000i2p109-126.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?

Author

Listed:
  • G. Ardine De Wit
  • Jan J.V. Busschbach
  • Frank Th. De Charro

Abstract

The literature was studied on the existence of differences in valuation for hypothetical and actual health states between patients and other‐rater groups. It was found that nine different study designs have been used to study this question and two of these designs were applied in a study involving dialysis patients and other rater groups. In the first study, both dialysis patients and students had to value hypothetical health states with Standard Gamble (SG) and Time Trade Off (TTO). Patients assigned higher values to hypothetical health states than students did. In the second study, dialysis patients who were being treated with four different dialysis modalities were asked to value their own health state with SG, TTO and a visual analogue scale (EQVAS), and to describe their health state on the EQ‐5Dprofile. Several EQ‐5Dindex values (health index values derived from general population samples) were calculated for the four dialysis treatment groups, based on the EQ‐5Dprofile. These health indexes could discriminate between treatment groups, according to clinical impressions. Treatment groups could not be differentiated based on patients' valuations of own health state. The results suggest that general population samples, using EQ‐5Dindex values, may be more able to discriminate between patient groups than the patients themselves are. The implications of this finding for valuation research and policy‐making are discussed. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:9:y:2000:i:2:p:109-126
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200003)9:2<109::AID-HEC503>3.0.CO;2-L
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200003)9:23.0.CO;2-L
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200003)9:2<109::AID-HEC503>3.0.CO;2-L?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. Eric B. Bass & Earl P. Steinberg & Henry A. Pitt & Robert I. Griffiths & Keith D. Lillemoe & George P. Saba & Christina Johns, 1994. "Comparison of the Rating Scale and the Standard Gamble in Measuring Patient Preferences for Outcomes of Gallstone Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(4), pages 307-314, October.
    2. Joel Tsevat & Lee Goldman & Jane R. Soukup & Gervasio A. Lamas & Kathleen F. Connors & Carole C. Chapin & Thomas H. Lee, 1993. "Stability of Time-tradeoff Utilities in Survivors of Myocardial Infarction," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(2), pages 161-165, June.
    3. John C. Hershey & Howard C. Kunreuther & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1982. "Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 936-954, August.
    4. Norman F. Boyd & Heather J. Sutherland & Karen Z. Heasman & David L. Tritchler & Bernard J. Cummings, 1990. "Whose Utilities for Decision Analysis?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(1), pages 58-67, February.
    5. H.A. Llewellyn-Thomas & H.J. Sutherland & D.L. Tritchler & G.A. Lockwood & J.E. Till & A. Ciampi & J.F. Scott & L.A. Lickley & E.B. Fish, 1991. "Benign and Malignant Breast Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 11(3), pages 180-188, August.
    6. Hadorn, David C., 1991. "The role of public values in setting health care priorities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 773-781, January.
    7. Johanna L. Bosch & Maria G.M. Hunink, 1996. "The Relationship between Descriptive and Valuational Quality-of-life Measures in Patients with Intermittent Claudication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 217-225, August.
    8. Jay J.J. Christensen-Szalanski, 1984. "Discount Functions and the Measurement of Patients' Values," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(1), pages 47-58, February.
    9. Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & Bonsel, Gouke J. & van der Maas, Paul J., 1990. "Valuation of health states by the general public: Feasibility of a standardized measurement procedure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 31(11), pages 1201-1206, January.
    10. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson, 1999. "A comparison of patient and social tariff values derived from the time trade‐off method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(6), pages 541-545, September.
    11. Busschbach, Jan J. V. & McDonnell, Joseph & Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise & van Hout, Ben A., 1999. "Estimating parametric relationships between health description and health valuation with an application to the EuroQol EQ-5D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 551-570, October.
    12. Jenkinson, Crispin & Fitzpatrick, Ray & Argyle, Michael, 1988. "The Nottingham health profile: An analysis of its sensitivity in differentiating illness groups," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 27(12), pages 1411-1414, January.
    13. J. Leighton Read & Robert J. Quinn & Donald M. Berwick & Harvey V. Fineberg & Milton C. Weinstein, 1984. "Preferences for Health Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(3), pages 315-329, August.
    14. Hall, Jane & Gerard, Karen & Salkeld, Glenn & Richardson, Jeff, 1992. "A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 993-1004, May.
    15. Floyd J. Fowler JR. & Paul D. Cleary & Michael P. Massagli & Joel Weissman & Arnold Epstein, 1995. "The Role of Reluctance to Give Up life in the Measurement of the Values of Health states," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(3), pages 195-200, August.
    16. Nord, Erik, 1992. "Methods for quality adjustment of life years," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 559-569, March.
    17. Gretchen B. Chapman & Arthur S. Elstein & Timothy M. Kuzel & Roohollah Sharifi & Robert B. Nadler & Anita Andrews & Charles L. Bennett, 1998. "Prostate Cancer Patients' Utilities for Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(3), pages 278-286, August.
    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. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    2. Bromley, Hannah L. & Petrie, Dennis & Mann, G.Bruce & Nickson, Carolyn & Rea, Daniel & Roberts, Tracy E., 2019. "Valuing the health states associated with breast cancer screening programmes: A systematic review of economic measures," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 142-154.
    3. Joshua A. Salomon & Christopher J.L. Murray, 2004. "A multi‐method approach to measuring health‐state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, March.
    4. Trude Arnesen & Mari Trommald, 2005. "Are QALYs based on time trade‐off comparable? – A systematic review of TTO methodologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 39-53, January.
    5. Jonathan R. Treadwell & Leslie A. Lenert, 1999. "Health Values and Prospect Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(3), pages 344-352, August.
    6. Ogorevc, Marko & Murovec, Nika & Fernandez, Natacha Bolanos & Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik, 2019. "Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 166-172.
    7. Levy, Moshe & Nir, Adi Rizansky, 2012. "The utility of health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 379-392.
    8. Suzanne Robinson, 2011. "Test–retest reliability of health state valuation techniques: the time trade off and person trade off," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1379-1391, November.
    9. Burstrom, Kristina & Johannesson, Magnus & Diderichsen, Finn, 2006. "A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 359-370, May.
    10. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    11. Neuman, Tzahi & Neuman, Einat & Neuman, Shoshana, 2010. "Explorations of the effect of experience on preferences for a health-care service," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 407-419, June.
    12. Peter A. Ubel & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel, 2000. "Societal value, the person trade‐off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 127-136, March.
    13. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    14. Ubel, Peter A. & Loewenstein, George & Scanlon, Dennis & Kamlet, Mark, 1998. "Value measurement in cost-utility analysis: explaining the discrepancy between rating scale and person trade-off elicitations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 33-44, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 1996. "The time trade‐off method: Results from a general population study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(2), pages 141-154, March.
    17. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    18. William Hollingworth & Richard A. Deyo & Sean D. Sullivan & Scott S. Emerson & Darryl T. Gray & Jeffrey G. Jarvik, 2002. "The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF‐36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 71-85, January.
    19. Erik Nord, 1994. "The qaly—a measure of social value rather than individual utility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(2), pages 89-93, March.
    20. Peter Lindgren & Thomas Kahan & Neil Poulter & Martin Buxton & Patrick Svarvar & Björn Dahlöf & Bengt Jönsson, 2007. "Utility loss and indirect costs following cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients: the ASCOT health economic substudy," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(1), pages 25-30, March.

    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:9:y:2000:i:2:p:109-126. 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.