Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research

Brazier, J (2005): Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research.

Abstract

Preference-based measures of health (PBMH) have been developed primarily for use in economic evaluation. They have two components, a standardized, multidimensional system for classifying health states and a set of preference weights or scores that generate a single index score for each health state defined by the classification, where full health is one and zero is equivalent to death. A health state can have a score of less than zero if regarded as worse than being dead. These PMBH can be distinguished from non-preference-based measures by the way the scoring algorithms have been developed, in that they are estimated from the values people place on different aspects of health rather than a simple summative scoring procedure or weights obtained from techniques based on item response patterns (e.g., factor analysis or Rasch analysis).

The use of PBMH has grown considerably over the last decade with the increasing use of economic evaluation to inform health policy. Preference-based measures have become a common means of generating health state values for calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The status of PBMH was considerably enhanced by the recommendations of the U.S. Public Health Service Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine to use them in economic evaluation. A key requirement for PBHM in economic evaluation is that they allow comparison across programmes.

While PBMH have been developed primarily for use in economic evaluation, they have also been used to measure health in populations. PBHM provide a better means than a profile measure of determining whether there has been an overall improvement in self-perceived health. The preference-based nature of their scoring algorithms also offers an advantage over non-preference-based measures since the overall summary score reflects what is important to the general population. A non-preference-based measure does not provide an indication to policy makers of the overall importance of health differences between groups or of changes over time.

The purpose of this paper is to critically review methods of designing preference based measures. The paper begins by reviewing approaches to deriving preference weights for PBMH, and this is followed by a brief description and comparison of five common PBMH. The main part of the paper then critically reviews the core components of these measures, namely the classifications for describing health states, the source of their values, and the methods for estimating the scoring algorithm. The final section proposes future research priorities for this field.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: preference-based health measures
• Subjects: I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty > I31 - General Welfare, Well-Being; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I1 - Health > I19 - Other

References

Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al (1997). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford Medical Publications.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2001). Guide to the Technology Appraisal Process. London, United Kingdom; National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

Health Technology Board for Scotland (2002). Guidance for manufacturers on submission of evidence relating to clinical and cost effectiveness in health technology assessment. Glasgow, Health Technology Board for Scotland.

Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Service (1992). Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on the submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Ministry of Health (Ontario) (1994). Ontario guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceutical products. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ministry of Health.

Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Fryback DG, Dasbach ED, Klein R, et al (1992). Health assessment by SF-36, Quality of Well-Being index and time trade-offs: predicting one measure from another. Med Decis Making 12:348-56.

Nichol MB, Sengupta N, Globe DR (2001). Evaluating quality-adjusted adjusted life years: estimation of the health utility index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Med Decis Making 21:105-12.

Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, et al (2002). Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ 11:341-53.

Brazier JE, Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD, et al (2004). Estimating a preference-based single index for the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) instrument from the SF-6D. Value in Health 7:490-8.

Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson DG, et al (1999). The relationship between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Med Decis Making 19:128-40.

Kaplan RM, Anderson JP (1988). A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Serv Res 23:203-35.

Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al (1996). Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 34:702-22.

Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care 2002;40:113-128.

Dolan P (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35:1095-108.

Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ (2005). US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 43:203-20.

Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21:271-92.

Brazier JE, Roberts J (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 42:851-9.

Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C (1999). A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy 4:174-84.

Hatoum HT, Brazier JE, Akhras KS (2004). Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical setting. Value in Health 7:602-9.

Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, et al (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 13:873-84.

Longworth L, Bryan S (2003). An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ 12:1061-7.

McDowell I, Newell C (1996). Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

World Health Organization (1948). Constitution of the World Health Organization. Basic documents. Geneva, Switzerland:World Health Organization.

Schwartz CE, Sprangers MA (1999). Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med 48:1531-48.

Brooks RG (1996). Euroqol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37:53-72.

Brazier J, Fukuhara S, Ikeda S, et al (2005). The Japanese valuation of the SF-6D and comparison to the UK values. HEDS DP 01/05. Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield, UK.

Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, et al (2004). Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 3:103-5.

Kobelt G, Kirchberger I, Malone-Lee J (1999). Review. Quality-of-life aspects of the overactive bladder and the effect of treatment with tolterodine. BJU Int 83:583-90.

Guyatt G (2002). Commentary on Jack Dowie, “Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions”. Health Econ 11:9-12.

Brazier JE, Deverill M (1999). A checklist for judging preference-based measures ofhealth related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ 8:41-51.

Torrance GW (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 5:1-30.

Froberg DG, Kane RL (1989). Methodology for measuring health-state preferences--II: Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 42:459-71.

Richardson J (1994). Cost-utility analysis: what should be measured? Soc Sci Med 39:7-21.

Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al (1996). Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ 15:209-31.

Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M (2000). Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 17:151-65.

Robinson A, Loomes G, Jones-Lee M (2001). Visual analogue scales, standard gambles, and relative risk aversion. Med Decis Making 21:17-27.

Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M (1997). An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Med Decis Making 17:208-16.

Nord E (1991). The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Int J Health Plan Manage 6;234-42.

Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A (1997). Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Soc Sci Med 45:1289-97.

Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Camerer C. Individual decision-making. In: Kagel J, Roth A (eds) Handbook of Experimental Economics (Princeton University Press)

Schoemaker PJH (1982). The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J Econ Lit 20:529-63.

Sutherland HJ, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Boyd NF, et al (1982). Attitudes toward quality of survival. The concept of “maximal endurable time”. Med Decis Making 2:299-309.

Dolan P, Gudex C (1995). Time preference, duration and health state valuations. Health Econ 4:289-99.

Bleichrodt H (2002). A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 11:447-56.

Oliver A (2003). The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory. J Health Econ. 22:659-74.

Dyer JS, Sarin RK (1982). Relative risk aversion. Manage Sci 28:875-86.

Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Soc Sci Med 44:1519-30.

Stevens K, McCabe C, Brazier J (2003). Mapping between visual analogue scale and standard gamble data: Results from the UK study using the Health Utilities Index II framework. Health Economics Study Group January 2003, Leeds, UK.

Salomon JA (2003). Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data. Popul Health Metr 1:12.

McCabe C, Brazier J, Gilks P, et al (2004). Estimating population cardinal health state valuation models from individual ordinal (rank) health state preference data. Sheffield Health Economics Group Discussion Paper 04/02.

Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, et al (1982). The measurement of patients’ values in medicine. Med Decis Making 2:449-62.

Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, et al (1990). Guide to design and development of health state utility instrumentation. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: McMaster University. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Paper 90-9.

Brazier JE, Dolan P (2004). Evidence of preference construction in a comparison of SG methods. Sheffield, UK: Health Economics and Decision Science Department, University of Sheffield, UK.

Lloyd AJ, Hutton J (2002). Do decision making heuristics distort efforts to elicit preferences? Paper presented to Developing Economic Evaluation Methods workshop. York, United Kingdom.

Shiell A, Seymour J, Hawe P, et al (2000). Are preferences over health states complete? Health Econ 9:47-55.

Patrick DL, Starks HE, Cain KC, et al (1994). Measuring preferences for health states worse than death. Med Decis Making 14:9-18.

Sackett DL, Torrance GW (1978). The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chron Dis 31:697-704.

Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman ZK, et al (1990). Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 10:58-67.

Hurst NP, Jobanputra P, Hunter M, et al (1994). Validity of Euroqol - a generic health status instrument - in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Economic and Health Outcomes Research Group. Br J Rheumatol 33:655-62.

Lenert LA, Treadwell JR, Schwartz CE (1999). Associations between health status and utilities: implications for policy. Med Care 37:479-89.

Buckingham K (1993). A note on HYE (healthy years equivalent). J Health Econ 12:301-9.

Menzel P, Dolan O, Richardson J, et al (2002). The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Soc Sci Med 55:2149-58.

Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, et al (2001). A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making 21:7-16.

Roberts J, Dolan P (2002). To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents? Soc Sci Med 54:919-29.

Kharroubi SA, O’Hagan A, Brazier JE. Estimating utilities from individual health preference data: a nonparametric Bayesian approach. Appl Stat (in press).

Currim IS, Sarin RK (1984). A comparative evaluation of multi-attribute consumer preference models. Manage Sci 30:543-61.

McCabe C (2003). Estimating preference weights for a paediatric health state classification (HUI-2) and a comparison of methods. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, UK.