Experience-based Utility and Own Health State Valuation for a Health State Classification System: Why and How to Do It

Overview

Journal Eur J Health Econ

Specialty Health Services

Date 2017 Oct 13

PMID 29022120

Citations 25

Authors

John Brazier

Donna Rowen

Milad Karimi

Tessa Peasgood

Aki Tsuchiya

Julie Ratcliffe

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In the estimation of population value sets for health state classification systems such as the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D), there is increasing interest in asking respondents to value their own health state, sometimes referred to as "experience-based utility values" or, more correctly, own rather than hypothetical health states. Own health state values differ to hypothetical health state values, and this may be attributable to many reasons. This paper critically examines whose values matter; why there is a difference between own and hypothetical values; how to measure own health state values; and why to use own health state values. Finally, the paper examines other ways that own health state values can be taken into account, such as including the use of informed general population preferences that may better take into account experience-based values.

Citing Articles

A systematic review of health state utility values for older people with acute myeloid leukaemia.

Button E, Carter H, Gavin N, LeBlanc T, McCaffrey N Qual Life Res. 2024; 33(11):2899-2914.

PMID: 39172308 PMC: 11541279. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-024-03734-9.

Prognostic Information on Progression to Dementia: Quantification of the Impact on Quality of Life.

Vermeulen R, Roudijk B, Govers T, Rovers M, Olde Rikkert M, Wijnen B J Alzheimers Dis. 2024; 97(4):1829-1840.

PMID: 38339932 PMC: 10894563. DOI: 10.3233/JAD-231037.

Surgical prioritization based on decision model outcomes is not sensitive to differences between the health-related quality of life values estimates of physicians and citizens.

van Alphen A, Krijkamp E, Gravesteijn B, Baatenburg de Jong R, Busschbach J Qual Life Res. 2023; 33(2):529-539.

PMID: 37938403 PMC: 10850033. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-023-03544-5.

Estimation of Health State Utility Values in Fabry Disease Using Vignette Development and Valuation.

Hughes D, Lenny A, Shah K, Longworth L, Devercelli G, Ayodele O J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2023; 10(1):80-88.

PMID: 37064293 PMC: 10095067. DOI: 10.36469/001c.71344.

Experience-based health state valuation using the EQ VAS: a register-based study of the EQ-5D-3L among nine patient groups in Sweden.

Teni F, Burstrom K, Devlin N, Parkin D, Rolfson O Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2023; 21(1):34.

PMID: 37038172 PMC: 10084671. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-023-02115-z.

References

Peeters Y, Stiggelbout A . Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health. 2009; 13(2):306-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00610.x. View

Peeters Y, Vliet Vlieland T, Stiggelbout A . Focusing illusion, adaptation and EQ-5D health state descriptions: the difference between patients and public. Health Expect. 2011; 15(4):367-78. PMC: 5060627. DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00667.x. View

Thokala P, Duenas A . Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health. 2012; 15(8):1172-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.015. View

Burstrom K, Sun S, Gerdtham U, Henriksson M, Johannesson M, Levin L . Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. Qual Life Res. 2013; 23(2):431-42. PMC: 3967073. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-013-0496-4. View

Dolan P . Whose preferences count?. Med Decis Making. 1999; 19(4):482-6. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900416. View

Fryback D . Whose quality of life? or Whose decision?. Qual Life Res. 2003; 12(6):609-10. DOI: 10.1023/a:1025151424576. View

Rand-Hendriksen K, Augestad L, Kristiansen I, Stavem K . Comparison of hypothetical and experienced EQ-5D valuations: relative weights of the five dimensions. Qual Life Res. 2011; 21(6):1005-12. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-0016-3. View

Rowen D, Mulhern B, Banerjee S, van Hout B, Young T, Knapp M . Estimating preference-based single index measures for dementia using DEMQOL and DEMQOL-Proxy. Value Health. 2012; 15(2):346-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.10.016. View

Mukuria C, Brazier J . Valuing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D health states using subjective well-being: a secondary analysis of patient data. Soc Sci Med. 2012; 77:97-105. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.012. View

10.

Rowen D, Brazier J, Young T, Gaugris S, Craig B, King M . Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health. 2011; 14(5):721-31. PMC: 3811066. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.004. View

11.

Karimi M, Brazier J, Paisley S . How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation. Soc Sci Med. 2016; 172:80-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.027. View

12.

Versteegh M, Brouwer W . Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc Sci Med. 2016; 165:66-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.043. View

13.

Ratcliffe J, Brazier J, Palfreyman S, Michaels J . A comparison of patient and population values for health states in varicose veins patients. Health Econ. 2006; 16(4):395-405. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1170. View

14.

Sun S, Chen J, Kind P, Xu L, Zhang Y, Burstrom K . Experience-based VAS values for EQ-5D-3L health states in a national general population health survey in China. Qual Life Res. 2014; 24(3):693-703. PMC: 4349948. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-014-0793-6. View

15.

Mulhern B, Bansback N, Hole A, Tsuchiya A . Using Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration to Model EQ-5D-5L Health State Preferences. Med Decis Making. 2016; 37(3):285-297. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16670616. View

16.

Robinson S, Bryan S . Does the process of deliberation change individuals' health state valuations? An exploratory study using the person trade-off technique. Value Health. 2013; 16(5):806-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.03.1633. View

17.

Kahneman D, Krueger A, Schkade D, Schwarz N, Stone A . A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science. 2004; 306(5702):1776-80. DOI: 10.1126/science.1103572. View

18.

Scuffham P, Ratcliffe J, Kendall E, Burton P, Wilson A, Chalkidou K . Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens' juries. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(5):e005437. PMC: 4028511. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005437. View

19.

Clarke A, Goldstein M, Michelson D, Garber A, Lenert L . The effect of assessment method and respondent population on utilities elicited for Gaucher disease. Qual Life Res. 1997; 6(2):169-84. DOI: 10.1023/a:1026446302100. View

20.

Litva A, Coast J, Donovan J, Eyles J, Shepherd M, Tacchi J . 'The public is too subjective': public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Soc Sci Med. 2002; 54(12):1825-37. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00151-4. View