Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states?

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Currently, health state values are usually obtained from members of the general public trying to imagine what the state would be like rather than by patients who are actually in the various states of health. Valuations of a health state by patients tend to vary from those of the general population, and this seems to be due to a range of factors including errors in the descriptive system, adaptation to the state and changes in internal standards. The question of whose values are used in cost-effectiveness analysis is ultimately a normative one, but the decision should be informed by evidence on the reasons for the differences. There is a case for obtaining better informed general population preferences by providing more information on what it is like for patients (including the process of adaptation).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  3. Torrance G, Blaker D, Detsky A, et al. Canadian guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canadian Collaborative Workshop for Pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9(6): 535–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dolan P. Modelling valuation for EuroQOL health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 351–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility function the Health Utility Index mark 3 system. Med Care 2002; 40(2): 113–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation a preference-based single index measure for health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21(2): 271–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31: 697–704

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman ZK, et al. Whose values for decision making? Med Decis Making 1990; 10: 58–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dolan P, Roberts J. To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents? Soc Sci Med 1999; 54: 919–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shaw J, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005; 43(3): 203–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dolan P. The effect of age on health state valuations. J Health Serv Res Policy 2000; 5: 17–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Insinga RP, Fryback DG. Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL. Qual Life Res 2003 Sep; 12(6): 611–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, et al. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998; 316(7133): 736–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 599–607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Spranger AG, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1507–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kahneman D, Snell J. Predicting utility. In: Hogarth RAM, editor. Insights in decision making. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press, 1990: 295–310

    Google Scholar 

  21. Redelmeier DA, Rozin P, Kahneman D. Understanding patients’ decisions: cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA 1993; 270(1): 72–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Menzel P, Dolan O, Richardson J, et al. The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Soc Sci Med 2002; 55(12): 2149–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kahneman D. Experienced utility and objective happiness: a moment based approach. In: Kahneman D, Tversky A, editors. Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000: 673–93

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Culyer AJ. Commodities, characteristics of commodities, characteristics of people, utilities and quality of life. In: Baldwin S, Godfrey C, Propper C, editors. The quality of life: perspectives and policies. London: Routledge, 1989: 9–27

    Google Scholar 

  26. Culyer AJ. The normative economics of health care finance and provision. Ox Rev Econ Policy 1989; 5(1): 34–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Richardson J. Cost-utility analysis: what should be measured. Soc Sci Med 1994; 39: 7–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Gafni A. Willingness to pay as a measure of benefits: relevant questions in the context of public decision making about health care programmes. Med Care 1991; 29: 1246–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Litva A, Coast J, Donovan J, et al. The public is too subjective: public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Soc Sci Med 2002; 54: 1825–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fryback DG. Whose quality of life? Or whose decision? Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 609–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lenert LA, Treadwell JR, Schwartz EC. Associations between health status and utilities: implications for policy. Med Care 2001;37(5): 470–89

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979; 47: 263–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ariely D, Carmon Z. Gestalt characteristics of experiences: the defining features of summarized events. J Behav Decis Making 2000; 13: 191–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kahneman D, Fredrickson BL, Schreiber CA, et al. When more pain is preferred to less: adding a better end. Psychol Sci 1993; 4: 401–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Brazier J, Green C, McCabe C, et al. A review of VAS in economic evaluation. J Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2003; 3: 293–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Mann R. A comparison of patient and general population values for EQ5D health states. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mukuria CW. Exploring the relationship between health and happiness: a comparison across studies of different conditions using the SF-36 and EQ-5D. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  40. Aballéa S, Tsuchiya A. Seeing and doing: feasibility study towards valuing visual impairment using simulation spectacles, Sheffield Health Economics Group Discussion Paper, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/87/47/04_4FT.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jan 11]

  41. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5(5): 1–186

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Slovic P. The construction of preferences. Am Psychol 1995; 50(5): 364–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the comments received from a discussant and other colleagues at the joint CES/HESG Meeting, Paris, France, 2004. The UK MRC HSRC funds John Brazier. John Brazier, Ron Akehurst, Karl Claxton, Chris McCabe and Mark Sculpher were members of the NICE Economics task force.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Economics and Decision Science, The University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK

    John Brazier, Ron Akehurst, Alan Brennan, Paul Dolan, Chris McCabe & Aki Tsuchyia

  2. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK

    Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher

Authors
  1. John Brazier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ron Akehurst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alan Brennan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul Dolan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karl Claxton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chris McCabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mark Sculpher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Aki Tsuchyia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Brazier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brazier, J., Akehurst, R., Brennan, A. et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states?. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 4, 201–208 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00148365-200504040-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00148365-200504040-00002

Keywords

Search

Navigation