IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v19y1999i2p141-148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health-related Quality of Life in Economic Evaluations for Osteoporosis

Author

Listed:
  • Sherine E. Gabriel
  • Terry S. Kneeland
  • L. Joseph Melton
  • Megan M. Moncur
  • Bruce Ettinger
  • Anna N.A. Tosteson

Abstract

Objective. To determine whether the source of preference scores has an impact on the cost-effectiveness of osteoporosis interventions. Methods. Three groups of sub jects aged ≥50 years—199 women without fractures and 183 women with osteopo rotic fractures—were studied at two major medical centers. Medical history and co morbidity data were obtained from review of medical records. Health status was measured using the Medical Outcomes Study SF-36. Two preference-classification systems (i.e., quality of well-being scores estimated from SF-36 subscales and the Health Utilities Index) were also used. Preferences for current health and for hypo thetical health states were assessed using a time tradeoff and implemented with a computer-based utility instrument (U-Titer). Wilcoxon's rank-sum and signed-rank tests were used to compare preferences for current health among women with osteoporotic fractures with 1) directly assessed preferences for osteoporosis health states deline ated by outcome descriptions and 2) preference scores obtained from the preference- classification systems. The potential impact of the source of the preference scores was estimated using a Markov state-transition model. Results. The preference scores for hypothetical osteoporosis health states of the non-fracture subjects were approximately 50% lower than those of the women who had actually experienced the health state. Differences of this magnitude would change the estimated cost-effectiveness of a 15- year intervention (which for approximately $280 per year prevents hip fracture about as well as hormone-replacement therapy) from $25,000 per QALY gained when non- fracture subjects' preferences were used to $94,000 per QALY gained when fracture subjects' preferences were used. Preferences estimated using the Health Utilities Index and those directly measured in fracture subjects using the time tradeoff did not differ significantly. Conclusions. The Health Utilities Index preference-classification system may provide an efficient and inexpensive alternative to direct utility assessment in this patient group. However, there are important differences in the valuation of health states by women who have experienced osteoporotic fractures compared with women who have not. Cost-utility analyses based solely on fracture patients' preferences for os teoporotic health states may undervalue prevention. Key words: osteoporosis; quality of life; utility assessment; patients' preferences. (Med Decis Making 1999;19:141- 148)

Suggested Citation

  • Sherine E. Gabriel & Terry S. Kneeland & L. Joseph Melton & Megan M. Moncur & Bruce Ettinger & Anna N.A. Tosteson, 1999. "Health-related Quality of Life in Economic Evaluations for Osteoporosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(2), pages 141-148, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:2:p:141-148
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9901900204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9901900204
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9901900204?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dennis G. Fryback & Erik J. Dasbach & Ronald Klein & Barbara E.K. Klein & Norma Dorn & Kathy Peterson & Patrica A. Martin, 1993. "The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(2), pages 89-102, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Duncan Mortimer & Leonie Segal, 2008. "Comparing the Incomparable? A Systematic Review of Competing Techniques for Converting Descriptive Measures of Health Status into QALY-Weights," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 66-89, January.
    2. Anja Schwalm & You-Shan Feng & Jörn Moock & Thomas Kohlmann, 2015. "Differences in EQ-5D-3L health state valuations among patients with musculoskeletal diseases, health care professionals and healthy volunteers," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 865-877, November.
    3. Joseph T. King Jr & Joel Tsevat & Mark S. Roberts, 2009. "Impact of the Scale Upper Anchor on Health State Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 257-266, March.
    4. Karen E. Bremner & Christopher A. K. Y. Chong & George Tomlinson & Shabbir M. H. Alibhai & Murray D. Krahn, 2007. "A Review and Meta-Analysis of Prostate Cancer Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(3), pages 288-298, May.
    5. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    6. Julie Sturza, 2010. "A Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility Values for Lung Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 685-693, November.
    7. William Hollingworth & Richard A. Deyo & Sean D. Sullivan & Scott S. Emerson & Darryl T. Gray & Jeffrey G. Jarvik, 2002. "The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF‐36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 71-85, January.
    8. Peasgood, T & Ward, S & Brazier, J, 2010. "A review and meta-analysis of health state utility values in breast cancer," MPRA Paper 29950, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Hirsch Ruchlin & Ralph Insinga, 2008. "A Review of Health-Utility Data for Osteoarthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 925-935, November.
    2. Louis S. Matza & Katherine J. Kim & Holly Yu & Katherine A. Belden & Antonia F. Chen & Mark Kurd & Bruce Y. Lee & Jason Webb, 2019. "Health state utilities associated with post-surgical Staphylococcus aureus infections," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 819-827, August.
    3. Stavros Petrou & Christine Hockley, 2005. "An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1169-1189, November.
    4. Don Kenkel, 2006. "WTP- and QALY-Based Approaches to Valuing Health for Policy: Common Ground and Disputed Territory," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(3), pages 419-437, July.
    5. Joshua T. Cohen & John D. Graham, 2003. "A Revised Economic Analysis of Restrictions on the Use of Cell Phones While Driving," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 5-17, February.
    6. John Anderson & Robert Kaplan & Christopher Ake, 2004. "Arthritis Impact on U.S. Life Quality: Morbidity and Mortality Effects From National Health Interview Survey Data 1986–1988 and 1994 Using QWBX1 Estimates of Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 67-91, October.
    7. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Costa-Font, Joan, 2009. "Heterogeneous 'adaptation' and 'income effects' across self-reported health distribution?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 574-580, August.
    8. Harris, Ryan A. & Nease, Robert Jr., 1997. "The importance of patient preferences for comorbidities in cost-effectiveness analyses," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 113-119, February.
    9. Kibum Kim & Gwendolyn A McMillin & Philip S Bernard & Srinivas Tantravahi & Brandon S Walker & Robert L Schmidt, 2019. "Cost effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring for imatinib administration in chronic myeloid leukemia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, December.
    10. Joyce H S You & Kia K N Tsui & Raymond S M Wong & Gergory Cheng, 2012. "Cost-Effectiveness of Dabigatran versus Genotype-Guided Management of Warfarin Therapy for Stroke Prevention in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-9, June.
    11. Patricia Vold Pepper & Douglas K. Owens, 2002. "Cost-Effectiveness of the Pneumococcal Vaccine in Healthy Younger Adults," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1_suppl), pages 45-57, September.
    12. Hans-Helmut König & Oliver Günther & Matthias Angermeyer & Christiane Roick, 2009. "Utility Assessment in Patients with Mental Disorders," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 405-419, May.
    13. Michele Kohli & Cheryl Attard & Annette Lam & Daniel Huse & John Cook & Chantal Bourgault & Evo Alemao & Donald Yin & Michael Marentette, 2006. "Cost Effectiveness of Adding Ezetimibe to Atorvastatin Therapy in Patients Not at Cholesterol Treatment Goal in Canada," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 815-830, August.
    14. William M Reichmann & Jeffrey N Katz & Elena Losina, 2011. "Differences in Self-Reported Health in the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) and Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-III)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-7, February.
    15. Erik Nord & Paul Menzel & Jeff Richardson, 2003. "The value of life: individual preferences and social choice. A comment to Magnus Johannesson," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 873-877, October.
    16. Thi-Phuong-Lan Nguyen & Paul F M Krabbe & Thi-Bach-Yen Nguyen & Catharina C M Schuiling-Veninga & E Pamela Wright & Maarten J Postma, 2015. "Utilities of Patients with Hypertension in Northern Vietnam," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-9, October.
    17. James F Burke & Kenneth M Langa & Rodney A Hayward & Roger L Albin, 2014. "Modeling Test and Treatment Strategies for Presymptomatic Alzheimer Disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, December.
    18. William Hollingworth & Richard A. Deyo & Sean D. Sullivan & Scott S. Emerson & Darryl T. Gray & Jeffrey G. Jarvik, 2002. "The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF‐36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 71-85, January.
    19. Mengjun Wu & John Brazier & Benjamin Kearns & Clare Relton & Christine Smith & Cindy Cooper, 2015. "Examining the impact of 11 long-standing health conditions on health-related quality of life using the EQ-5D in a general population sample," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 141-151, March.
    20. Daniel Sperber & Alan Shiell & Ken Fyie, 2010. "The cost‐effectiveness of a law banning the use of cellular phones by drivers," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1212-1225, October.

    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:sae:medema:v:19:y:1999:i:2:p:141-148. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.