IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i6p685-693.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility Values for Lung Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Julie Sturza

    (Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, sturza.julie@epa.gov)

Abstract

Background. Published utility estimates for lung cancer are plentiful and vary greatly. The reason for this variability is unclear, but may result from differences in the methods used to elicit each utility. Purpose. To identify a set of pooled lung cancer utility estimates reflective of the available literature and determine which methodological factors significantly influence the value of lung cancer utility. Data Sources. Searches of PubMed, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost Effectiveness Analysis Registry from the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health. Study Selection. English-language studies were included if they presented at least one previously unpublished lung cancer utility value, noted the elicitation technique and utility value provider. Data Extraction and Analysis. Two trained readers independently reviewed each article and extracted information for analysis. A hierarchical linear model (HLM) was used to perform a meta-regression with cancer stage, lower bound of scale, upper bound of scale, respondent, elicitation method, and lung cancer subtype as explanatory variables. Data Synthesis. Twenty-three articles containing 223 unique utility values were included. Lung cancer stage and subtype, the upper bound label of the utility scale, and respondent identity were significant predictors of utility (P

Suggested Citation

  • Julie Sturza, 2010. "A Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility Values for Lung Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 685-693, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:6:p:685-693
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10369004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10369004
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10369004?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. Daniel Polsky & Richard J. Willke & Karen Scott & Kevin A. Schulman & Henry A. Glick, 2001. "A comparison of scoring weights for the EuroQol© derived from patients and the general public," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 27-37, January.
    2. 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.
    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.
    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. John Edelsberg & Derek Weycker & Mark Atwood & Geoffrey Hamilton-Fairley & James R Jett, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness of an autoantibody test (EarlyCDT-Lung) as an aid to early diagnosis of lung cancer in patients with incidentally detected pulmonary nodules," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, May.
    2. Michael J. Zoratti & A. Simon Pickard & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Daniel Ollendorf & Andrew Lloyd & Kelvin K W Chan & Don Husereau & John E. Brazier & Murray Krahn & Mitchell Levine & Lehana Thabane & Fe, 2021. "Evaluating the conduct and application of health utility studies: a review of critical appraisal tools and reporting checklists," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 723-733, July.
    3. Andrea C Villanti & Yiding Jiang & David B Abrams & Bruce S Pyenson, 2013. "A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening and the Additional Benefits of Incorporating Smoking Cessation Interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-11, August.
    4. Jiryoun Gong & Juhee Han & Donghwan Lee & Seungjin Bae, 2020. "A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients’ Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Sébastien Gendarme & Jean-Claude Pairon & Pascal Andujar & François Laurent & Patrick Brochard & Fleur Delva & Bénédicte Clin & Antoine Gislard & Christophe Paris & Isabelle Thaon & Helene Goussault &, 2022. "Cost-Effectiveness of an Organized Lung Cancer Screening Program for Asbestos-Exposed Subjects," Post-Print hal-03783819, HAL.
    6. Mathilda Bongers & Veerle Coupé & Elise Jansma & Egbert Smit & Carin Groot, 2012. "Cost Effectiveness of Treatment with New Agents in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 17-34, January.

    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. 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.
    2. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Darrell J. Gaskin & Kevin D. Frick, 2008. "Race and Ethnic Disparities in Valuing Health," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 12-20, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Eduardo Sánchez‐Iriso & Maria Errea Rodríguez & Juan Manuel Cabasés Hita, 2019. "Valuing health using EQ‐5D: The impact of chronic diseases on the stock of health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1402-1417, December.
    7. Burstrom, Kristina & Johannesson, Magnus & Diderichsen, Finn, 2006. "A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 359-370, May.
    8. Thomas Hammerschmidt & Hans-Peter Zeitler & Markus Gulich & Reiner Leidl, 2004. "A Comparison of Different Strategies to Collect Standard Gamble Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(5), pages 493-503, October.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Yvette Peeters & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2009. "Valuing Health: Does Enriching a Scenario Lead to Higher Utilities?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 334-342, May.
    14. 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.

    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:30:y:2010:i:6:p:685-693. 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.