Valuing health states: a comparison of methods.
ABSTRACT In eliciting health state valuations, two widely used methods are the standard gamble (SG) and the time trade off (TTO). Both methods make assumptions about individual preferences that are too restrictive to allow them to act as perfect proxies for utility. Therefore, a choice between them might instead be made on empirical grounds. This paper reports on a study which compared a "props" (using specifically-designed boards) and a "no props" (using self-completion booklets) variant of each method. The results suggested that both non props variants might be susceptable to framing effects and that TTP props outperformed SG props.
- SourceAvailable from: David Vivas-Consuelo[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this review is to do a discussion about the use of the HRQoL as a health measure of the populations that enable to analyze its potential use as a measure of development and efficiency of health systems. The principal use of the HRQoL is in health technologies economics evaluation; however this measure can be use in public health when need to know the health state of population. The WHO recognizes its potential use but its necessary to do a discussion about your difficulties for its application and restrictions for its use as a performance indicator for the health systems. The review show the different aspects about the use of HRQoL how a measure of efficiency ot the health system, each aspect identified in the literature is analyzed and discussed, developing the pros and cons of their possible use, especially when it comes as a cardinal measure. The analysis allows recognize that measuring HRQoL in countries could serve as a useful indicator, especially when it seeks to measure the level of health and disease, as do most of the indicators of current use. However, the methodological constraints that do not allow comparability between countries especially when you have large socioeconomic differences have yet to be resolved to allow comparison between different regions.SpringerPlus 12/2013; 2:664. DOI:10.1186/2193-1801-2-664
Article: The utility of health and wealth[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Tradeoffs between health and wealth are among the most important decisions individuals make, and are central to social and economic policy. Yet, only a few studies have investigated the utility of health and wealth empirically. This paper investigates this utility function both theoretically and empirically. We conduct detailed personal interviews with 180 cancer patients, and also obtain questionnaires from 132 diabetes patients. We find strong support for the utility function U(h, w)=h·log(w), where h denotes health and w denotes wealth.Journal of Health Economics 03/2012; 31(2):379-92. DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2012.02.003 · 2.25 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To explore the impact of applying different non-standardized analytical choices for quality of life measurement to obtain quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). In addition to more widely discussed issues such as the choice of instrument (e.g. EQ-5D or SF-6D?) researchers must also choose between different recall periods, scoring algorithms and interpolations between points of measurement. A prospective survey was made among 114 Belgian patients with acute hepatitis A illness. Using non-parametric tests and generalized linear models (GLM's), we compared four different methods to estimate QALY losses, two based on the EQ-5D (administered during the period of illness without recall period) and two based on the SF-6D (administered after illness with 4 weeks recall period). We found statistically significant differences between all methods, with the non-parametric SF-6D-based method yielding the highest median QALY impact (0.032 QALYs). This is more than five times as high as the EQ-5D-based method with linear health improvement, which yields the lowest median QALY impact (0.006 QALYs). Economic evaluations of health care technologies predominantly use QALYs to quantify health benefits. Non-standardised analytical choices can have a decision-changing impact on cost-effectiveness results, particularly if morbidity takes up a substantial part of the total QALY loss. Yet these choices are rarely subjected to sensitivity analysis. Researchers and decision makers should be aware of the influence of these somewhat arbitrary choices on their results.Value in Health 02/2011; 14(2):282-90. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2010.10.004 · 2.89 Impact Factor