Health utility elicitation: Is there still a role for direct methods?

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 83-86

  Prosser, Lisa A ^a   Grosse, Scott D ^b   Wittenberg, Eve ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CENTER ON BIRTH DEFECTS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES   (United States)

^c HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Patient preference; Quality adjusted life years; Utility measurement.

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCEDURES; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; WELLBEING;

AGE FACTORS; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CAREGIVERS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS, PHARMACEUTICAL; EUROPE; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; HEALTH; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84855897047     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11597720-000000000-00000     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org. uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
2. Miller W, Robinson L, Lawrence R, editors. Valuing health for regulatory cost-effectiveness analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006
3. Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996
4. Lieu TA, Meltzer MI, Messonnier ML, the ACIP Ad Hoc Working Group on Economic Analyses. Guidance for health economics studies presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 2007 Nov 13 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/acip/downloads/economics-studies- guidance.pdf [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
5. College voor zorgverzekeringen. Guidelines for pharma- coeconomic research, updated version. Diemen: CVZ, 2006 Mar [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor. org/PEguidelines/source/HTAGuidelinesNLupdated2006. pdf [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
6. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Version 4.3. Canberra (ACT): Department of Health and Ageing 2008 Dec [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/pub lishing.nsf/content/ AECB791C29482920CA25724400188E DB/$File/PBAC4.3.2.pdf [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
7. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa (ON): CADTH 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186- EconomicGuidelines-e.pdf [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
8. Institut fur Qualitat und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Ge- sundheitswesen. General methods for the assessment of the relation of benefits to costs. Version 1.0. Cologne: IQWiG, 2009 Nov 19 [online]. Available from URL: http://www. iqwig.de/download/General-Methods-for-the-Assessment-of-the-Relation-of- Benefits-to-Costs.pdf [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
9. College des Economistes de la Sante. French guidelines for the economic evaluation of health care technologies. Paris: CES 2004 Sep [online]. Available from URL: http://www. ces-asso.org/docs/France-Guidelines-HE-Evaluation.PDF [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
10. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, et al. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 2006; 9 (4): 213-8 (Pubitemid 44126775)
11. Prosser LA, Wittenberg E. Trends in utility elicitation methods: is there still a role for direct elicitation? [abstract]. Med Decis Making 2011 Jan-Feb; 31: E63-64
12. Prosser LA, Hammitt JK, Keren R. Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: theoretical and methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25 (9): 713-26 (Pubitemid 47481637)
13. Petrou S. Should health gains by children be given the same value as health gains by adults in an economic evaluation framework? In: Ungar WJ, editor. Economic evaluation in child health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010: 271-87
14. Wright DR, Wittenberg E, Swan JS, et al. Methods for measuring temporary health states for cost-utility analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27 (9): 713-23
15. Basu A, Dale W, Elstein A, et al. A time tradeoff method for eliciting partner's quality of life due to patient's health states in prostate cancer. Med Decis Making 2010; 30 (3): 355-65
16. Neumann PJ, Kuntz KM, Leon J, et al. Health utilities in Alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional study of patients and caregivers. Med Care 1999; 37 (1): 27-32
17. Schulz R, Martire LM. Family caregiving of persons with dementia: prevalence, health effects, and support strategies. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004 May-Jun; 12 (3): 240-9 (Pubitemid 38569151)
18. Tilford JM, Grosse SD, Robbins JM, et al. Health state preference scores of children with spina bifida and their caregivers. Qual Life Res 2005 May; 14 (4): 1087-98 (Pubitemid 40685231)
19. Bell C, Araki S, Neumann P. The association between caregiver burden and caregiver health-related quality of life in Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2001; 15 (3): 129-36 (Pubitemid 32807937)
20. Brouwer WB. Too important to ignore: informal caregivers and other significant others. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (1): 39-41 (Pubitemid 43197229)
21. Petrou S. Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Econ 2003; 12 (8): 697-702 (Pubitemid 37045311)
22. Davidson T, Levin LA. Is the societal approach wide enough to include relatives? Incorporating relatives' costs and effects in a cost-effectiveness analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2010; 8 (1): 25-35
23. Bobinac A, van Exel JA, Rutten FF, et al. Health effects in significant others: separating family and care-giving effects. Med Decis Making 2011 Mar-Apr; 31 (2): 292-8
24. Bobinac A, van Exel NJ, Rutten FF, et al. Caring for and caring about: disentangling the caregiver effect and the family effect. J Health Econ 2010; 29 (4): 549-56
25. Neumann PJ. What next for QALYs? JAMA 2011 May 4; 305 (17): 1806-7
26. Marshall DB, Bridges JFP, Hauber B, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health: how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient 2010 Dec; 3 (4): 249-56
27. Grosse SD, Wordsworth S, Payne K. Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis. Genet Med 2008; 10 (9): 648-54
28. Ratcliffe J, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, et al. Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire. Health Econ 2009; 18 (11): 1261-76
29. Flynn TN. Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values: issues to consider. Pharmaco-economics 2010 Sep 1; 28 (9): 711-22
30. Stiglitz J, Sen A, Fitoussi J. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Paris: CMEPSP, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.citymaking.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/ 01/19784660-Happiness-and-Measuring-Economic-Progress-by-Joseph-Stiglitz.pdf [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
31. Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med 2008 Sep; 67 (5): 874-82