IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v11y2014i5p4939-4952d35857.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health Utilities of Type 2 Diabetes-Related Complications: A Cross-Sectional Study in Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Aliasghar A. Kiadaliri

    (Health Economics Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund 22381, Sweden
    School of Public Health, Department of Health Management and Economics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 141556447, Iran
    Institute of Economic Research, Health Economics & Management, Lund University, Lund 22007, Sweden)

  • Ulf-G Gerdtham

    (Health Economics Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund 22381, Sweden
    Institute of Economic Research, Health Economics & Management, Lund University, Lund 22007, Sweden
    Department of Economics, Lund University, Lund 22363, Sweden)

  • Björn Eliasson

    (Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg 41345, Sweden)

  • Soffia Gudbjörnsdottir

    (Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg 41345, Sweden)

  • Ann-Marie Svensson

    (Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg 41345, Sweden)

  • Katarina Steen Carlsson

    (Health Economics Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund 22381, Sweden
    Institute of Economic Research, Health Economics & Management, Lund University, Lund 22007, Sweden)

Abstract

This study estimates health utilities (HU) in Sweden for a range of type 2 diabetes-related complications using EQ-5D and two alternative tariffs (UK and Swedish) from 1757 patients with type 2 diabetes from the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR). Ordinary least squares were used for statistical analysis. Lower HU was found for female gender, younger age at diagnosis, higher BMI, and history of complications. Microvascular and macrovascular complications had the most negative effect on HU among women and men, respectively. The greatest decline in HU was associated with kidney disorders (−0.114) using the UK tariff and stroke (−0.059) using the Swedish tariff. Multiple stroke and non-acute ischaemic heart disease had higher negative effect than a single event. With the UK tariff, each year elapsed since the last microvascular/macrovascular complication was associated with 0.013 and 0.007 units higher HU, respectively. We found important heterogeneities in effects of complications on HU in terms of gender, multiple event, and time. The Swedish tariff gave smaller estimates and so may result in less cost-effective interventions than the UK tariff. These results suggest that incorporating subgroup-specific HU in cost-utility analyses might provide more insight for informed decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Aliasghar A. Kiadaliri & Ulf-G Gerdtham & Björn Eliasson & Soffia Gudbjörnsdottir & Ann-Marie Svensson & Katarina Steen Carlsson, 2014. "Health Utilities of Type 2 Diabetes-Related Complications: A Cross-Sectional Study in Sweden," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:11:y:2014:i:5:p:4939-4952:d:35857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/5/4939/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/5/4939/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    2. Norman F. Boyd & Heather J. Sutherland & Karen Z. Heasman & David L. Tritchler & Bernard J. Cummings, 1990. "Whose Utilities for Decision Analysis?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(1), pages 58-67, February.
    3. Nick Kontodimopoulos & Evelina Pappa & Zinovia Chadjiapostolou & Eleni Arvanitaki & Angelos Papadopoulos & Dimitris Niakas, 2012. "Comparing the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and 15D utilities to the specific effect of diabetic complications," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(1), pages 111-120, February.
    4. Philip Clarke & Alastair Gray & Rury Holman, 2002. "Estimating Utility Values for Health States of Type 2 Diabetic Patients Using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(4), pages 340-349, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ogorevc, Marko & Murovec, Nika & Fernandez, Natacha Bolanos & Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik, 2019. "Questioning the differences between general public vs. patient based preferences towards EQ-5D-5L defined hypothetical health states," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 166-172.
    2. John Yfantopoulos & Athanasios Chantzaras, 2020. "Health-related quality of life and health utilities in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: the impact of related comorbidities/complications," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 729-743, July.
    3. José M. Labeaga & Xisco Oliver & Amedeo Spadaro, "undated". "Measuring Changes in Health Capital," Working Papers 2005-15, FEDEA.
    4. Álvarez, Begoña & Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva, 2011. "Patients' self-interested preferences: Empirical evidence from a priority setting experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1317-1324, April.
    5. Mason, J.E. & Denton, B.T. & Shah, N.D. & Smith, S.A., 2014. "Optimizing the simultaneous management of blood pressure and cholesterol for type 2 diabetes patients," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(3), pages 727-738.
    6. Patricia Cubí‐Mollá & Mireia Jofre‐Bonet & Victoria Serra‐Sastre, 2017. "Adaptation to health states: Sick yet better off?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1826-1843, December.
    7. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    9. Francisco Javier Domínguez-Muñoz & José Carmelo Adsuar & Jorge Carlos-Vivas & Santos Villafaina & Miguel Angel Garcia-Gordillo & Miguel Ángel Hernández-Mocholi & Daniel Collado-Mateo & Narcis Gusi, 2020. "Association between TUG and Anthropometric Values, Vibration Perception Threshold, FHSQ and 15-D in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-10, March.
    10. Octave Jokung & Serge Macé, 2013. "Long-term health investment when people underestimate their adaptation to old age-related health problems," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 1003-1013, December.
    11. Thébaut, Clémence, 2013. "Dealing with moral dilemma raised by adaptive preferences in health technology assessment: The example of growth hormones and bilateral cochlear implants," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 102-109.
    12. de Wit, G.Ardine & Ramsteijn, Paul G & de Charro, Frank Th, 1998. "Economic evaluation of end stage renal disease treatment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 215-232, June.
    13. Brian T. Denton & Murat Kurt & Nilay D. Shah & Sandra C. Bryant & Steven A. Smith, 2009. "Optimizing the Start Time of Statin Therapy for Patients with Diabetes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 351-367, May.
    14. Paul Dolan & Daniel Kahneman, 2008. "Interpretations Of Utility And Their Implications For The Valuation Of Health," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 215-234, January.
    15. Rachel Mann & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya, 2009. "A comparison of patient and general population weightings of EQ‐5D dimensions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 363-372, March.
    16. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    17. Floortje Nooten & Jan Busschbach & Michel Agthoven & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2018. "What should we know about the person behind a TTO?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(9), pages 1207-1211, December.
    18. Schünemann, Johannes & Strulik, Holger & Trimborn, Timo, 2017. "Going from bad to worse: Adaptation to poor health health spending, longevity, and the value of life," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 130-146.
    19. Shuyan Gu & Yiming Mu & Suodi Zhai & Yuhang Zeng & Xuemei Zhen & Hengjin Dong, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin versus Acarbose as a Monotherapy in Type 2 Diabetes in China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-25, November.
    20. Stein, K & Dyer, M & Crabb, T & Milne, R & Round, A & Ratcliffe, J & Brazier, J, 2006. "An Internet “Value of Health” panel: recruitment, participation and compliance," MPRA Paper 29770, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:11:y:2014:i:5:p:4939-4952:d:35857. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.