IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v282y2021ics0277953621004822.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What drives differences in preferences for health states between patients and the public? A qualitative investigation of respondents’ thought processes

Author

Listed:
  • Goodwin, Elizabeth
  • Davey, Antoinette
  • Green, Colin
  • Hawton, Annie

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analyses using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) are used in decision-making regarding which interventions are available via many national healthcare systems. QALYs are calculated based on health state values provided by preference elicitation techniques. Several national decision-making bodies recommend that health state values should be based on preferences elicited from general populations, rather than from patients. Previous studies have shown systematic differences between health state values elicited from members of the general population and from patients. Various explanations for this phenomenon have been proposed, however empirical evidence for these is scarce. We aimed to explore possible reasons for discrepancies between public and patient valuations by undertaking qualitative cognitive interviews, asking 14 members of the general population and 12 people with multiple sclerosis (MS) to think aloud while completing a preference elicitation task (time trade-off) for MS-related health states. The interviews were undertaken between December 2016 and October 2017 in the South West region of England, and were analysed using the Framework Method. As anticipated, we found that participants with MS had more experience of health problems and used this experience to consider how they might adapt to the health states over time, and which dimensions of health-related quality of life were most important to them. We found no evidence that participants with MS were less affected by framing effects and focusing illusions, more likely to prioritise non-physical dimensions of health, or more prone to loss aversion, endowment effects and non-compensatory decision-making. These findings contribute to our understanding of how patients and members of the general population respond to preference elicitation exercises, and why their preferences may differ, and may help to inform developing areas of research, such as the joint presentation of cost-effectiveness results from multiple perspectives, and the use of preferences elicited from patients for experienced health states.

Suggested Citation

  • Goodwin, Elizabeth & Davey, Antoinette & Green, Colin & Hawton, Annie, 2021. "What drives differences in preferences for health states between patients and the public? A qualitative investigation of respondents’ thought processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:282:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621004822
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621004822
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114150?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Marjon van der Pol & Alan Shiell, 2007. "Extrinsic Goals and Time Tradeoff," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(4), pages 406-413, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Rachel Baker & Angela Robinson, 2004. "Responses to standard gambles: are preferences ‘well constructed’?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 37-48, January.
    5. Marieke Krol & Arthur E. Attema & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2016. "Altruistic Preferences in Time Tradeoff," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 187-198, February.
    6. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    7. Annie Hawton & Kate Boddy & Rebecca Kandiyali & Lynn Tatnell & Andy Gibson & Elizabeth Goodwin, 2021. "Involving Patients in Health Economics Research: “The PACTS Principles”," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 429-434, July.
    8. Karimi, M. & Brazier, J. & Paisley, S., 2017. "How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 80-88.
    9. Sylvie M. C. van Osch & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2008. "The construction of standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 31-40, January.
    10. Menzel, Paul & Dolan, Paul & Richardson, Jeff & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2002. "The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(12), pages 2149-2158, December.
    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. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Milad Karimi & Tessa Peasgood & Aki Tsuchiya & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 881-891, July.
    2. Stöckel, Jannis & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2023. "Adaptation in life satisfaction and self-assessed health to disability - Evidence from the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 328(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Karimi, M. & Brazier, J. & Paisley, S., 2017. "How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 80-88.
    5. David J. Mott & Iain Leslie & Koonal Shah & Jennifer Rowell & Nicolas Scheuer, 2021. "Impact of Including Carer Information in Time Trade-Off Tasks: Results from a Pilot Study," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 665-675, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Andrew J. Oswald & Nattavudh Powdthavee, 2008. "Death, Happiness, and the Calculation of Compensatory Damages," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(S2), pages 217-251, June.
    8. McTaggart-Cowan, Helen & Tsuchiya, Aki & O'Cathain, Alicia & Brazier, John, 2011. "Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(11), pages 1904-1912, June.
    9. Engel, Lidia & Bryan, Stirling & Noonan, Vanessa K. & Whitehurst, David G.T., 2018. "Using path analysis to investigate the relationships between standardized instruments that measure health-related quality of life, capability wellbeing and subjective wellbeing: An application in the ," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 154-164.
    10. Dolan, Paul & Kavetsos, Georgios & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2013. "Sick but satisfied: The impact of life and health satisfaction on choice between health scenarios," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 708-714.
    11. Adler, Matthew D. & Dolan, Paul & Henwood, Amanda & Kavetsos, Georgios, 2022. "“Better the devil you know”: Are stated preferences over health and happiness determined by how healthy and happy people are?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 303(C).
    12. Arthur Attema & Yvette Edelaar-Peeters & Matthijs Versteegh & Elly Stolk, 2013. "Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 53-64, July.
    13. Mukuria, Clara & Brazier, John, 2013. "Valuing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D health states using subjective well-being: A secondary analysis of patient data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 97-105.
    14. Johanna Vásquez & Sergio Botero, 2020. "Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Huang, Li & Devlin, Nancy & Chen, Gang & Dalziel, Kim, 2024. "A happiness approach to valuing health states for children," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    17. Petra Baji & Anikó Bíró, 2018. "Adaptation or recovery after health shocks? Evidence using subjective and objective health measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 850-864, May.
    18. Frijters, Paul & Krekel, Christian & Ulker, Aydogan, 2020. "Machiavelli versus concave utility functions: should bads be spread out or concentrated?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 108421, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Donna Rowen, 2012. "Methods for Developing Preference-based Measures of Health," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 37, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Bradford, W. David & Dolan, Paul, 2010. "Getting used to it: The adaptive global utility model," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 811-820, December.

    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:eee:socmed:v:282:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621004822. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.