Trends in the Measurement of Health Utilities in Published Cost-Utility Analyses
dc.contributor.author | Brauer, Carmen A. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Rosen, Allison B. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Greenberg, Dan | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Neumann, Peter J. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-06-01T18:56:23Z | |
dc.date.available | 2010-06-01T18:56:23Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2006-07 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Brauer, Carmen A.; Rosen, Allison B.; Greenberg, Dan; Neumann, Peter J. (2006). "Trends in the Measurement of Health Utilities in Published Cost-Utility Analyses." Value in Health 9(4): 213-218. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72131> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1098-3015 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1524-4733 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/72131 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16903990&dopt=citation | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Objective: The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommended the compilation of a catalog of health state utility weights for use in cost-utility analyses (CUAs), and has given methodological recommendations. This study presents an update, through 2001, to our current registry of utility weights (available at http://www.tufts-nemc.org/cearegistry ; previously at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cearegistry ), and documents recent changes in methods used for utility weight elicitation. Methods: We searched the English-language medical literature for original CUAs reporting outcomes as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Two trained readers independently audited each article, abstracting data on the health state descriptions, corresponding utility weights, methods of elicitation, and sources of the estimates. The utility elicitation methods from 1998 to 2001 were compared with the methods used to obtain utilities before 1998. Results: We identified 306 CUAs published after 1998, reporting 1210 separate health-related utility estimates, bringing the total in our catalog to 2159 weights. Most frequently, health states pertained to the circulatory system and oncology. Methods varied substantially: 36% of authors used direct elicitation (standard gamble, time trade-off or rating scale), 23% used generic health status instruments (EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index, etc.), and 25% estimated weights based on clinical judgment. Community preferences were used in 27% of the values. Compared with pre-1998, utilities published from 1998 to 2001 were more likely to be elicited using a generic instrument, more likely elicited from community samples, and less likely derived from expert opinion, with no formally employed methodology. Conclusions: Increasingly, analysts conducting CUAs are using generic, preference-weighted instruments, and relying on community-based preferences. Our catalog of utility weights provides a useful reference tool for producers and consumers of CUAs, but also highlights the continued need for improvement in methods and transparency. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 181465 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3109 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.publisher | Blackwell Publishing Inc | en_US |
dc.rights | 2006, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Cost-effectiveness Analysis | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Cost-utility Analysis | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Health Utility | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Quality-adjusted Life-year | en_US |
dc.title | Trends in the Measurement of Health Utilities in Published Cost-Utility Analyses | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Medicine (General) | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Division of Beneral Medicine, University of Michigan Health Systems, Department Of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, and Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor MI, USA; | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Department of Health Systems Management, Faculty of Health Sciences & School of Management, Ben-Gurion University of Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel; | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 16903990 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72131/1/j.1524-4733.2006.00116.x.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00116.x | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Value in Health | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, et al. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996; 276: 1172 – 7. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, et al. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996; 276: 1339 – 41. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996; 276: 1253 – 8. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Gold M. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Med Care 1996; 34 ( Suppl. ): DS197 – 9. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | 6 EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199 – 208. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Parmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 490 – 502. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, et al. Multi-attribute preference functions: Health Utilities Index. Parmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 503 – 20. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kaplan RM, Anderson JP, Wu AW, et al. The Quality of Well-Being scale: applications in AIDS, cystic fibrosis, and arthritis. Med Care 1989; 27 ( Suppl. ): S27 – 43. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Gold M, Franks P, Erickson P. Assessing the health of the nation. The predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health. Med Care 1996; 34: 163 – 77. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Gold MR, Franks P, McCoy KI, et al. Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: using national measures to create condition-specific values. Med Care 1998; 36: 775 – 7. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Fryback DG, Dasback EJ, Klein R, et al. The beaver dam health outcomes study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993; 13: 89 – 102. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Bell CM, Chapman RH, Stone PW, et al. An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 288 – 94. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 2000; 38: 583 – 637. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Okchanski NV, et al. Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976–2001. Value Health 2005; 8: 3 – 9. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Neumann PJ, Stone PW, Chapman RH, et al. The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976–1997. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 964 – 72. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Chapman RH, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, et al. A comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios and a sub-table of “panel-worthy” studies. Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 451 – 67. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Chapman RH, Berger M, Weinstein MC, et al. When does quality-adjusting life-years matter in cost-effectiveness analysis? Health Econ 2004; 13: 429 – 36. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | 19 Office of Health Economics and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ association’s. Health Economic Evaluations Database. Available from: http://www.oheheed.com/ [Accessed June 26, 2002]. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | 20 U.S. Public Health Service and Health Care Financing Administration. The International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision Clinical Modification ICD-9-CM. Vol. 1, 5th edn. [Online] Available from: http://cedr.lbl.gov/icd9.html [Accessed October 12, 2000]. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients’ well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 505 – 12. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, et al. Preferences for health outcomes: comparisons of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 1984; 4: 315 – 29. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34: 559 – 69. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Oostenbrink JB, Tangelder MJ, Busschback JJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of oral anticoagulants versus aspirin in patients after infrainguinal bypass grafting surgery. J Vasc Surg 2001; 34: 254 – 62. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sanders GD, Hlatky MA, Every NR, et al. Potential cost-effectiveness of prophylactic use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator or amiodarone after myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 870 – 83. | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.