IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i6p809-818.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Review and Meta-analysis of Colorectal Cancer Utilities

Author

Listed:
  • Sandjar Djalalov
  • Linda Rabeneck
  • George Tomlinson
  • Karen E. Bremner
  • Robert Hilsden
  • Jeffrey S. Hoch

Abstract

Objective. To perform a systematic review of utility weights for colorectal cancer (CRC) health states reported in the scientific literature and to determine the effects of disease factors, patient characteristics, and utility methods on utility values. Methods. We identified 26 articles written in English and published from January 1980 to January 2013, providing 351 unique utilities for CRC health states elicited from 6546 unique respondents. The CRC utility data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models with CRC type, stage, time to or from initial care, utility measurement instrument, and administration method as independent variables. Results. In the base case model, the estimated utility for a patient with stage I to III CRC more than 1 year after surgery, rated using a self-administered time tradeoff instrument, was 0.90. Stage, time to or from initial care, and utility measurement instrument were associated with statistically significant utility differences ranging from −0.19 to 0.02. Utilities for patients with stage IV cancer were 0.19 lower (P

Suggested Citation

  • Sandjar Djalalov & Linda Rabeneck & George Tomlinson & Karen E. Bremner & Robert Hilsden & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2014. "A Review and Meta-analysis of Colorectal Cancer Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(6), pages 809-818, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:6:p:809-818
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14536779
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X14536779
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X14536779?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. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Dolan, Paul, 1996. "Modelling valuations for health states: the effect of duration," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 189-203, December.
    3. 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.
    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. S Lucas Goede & Linda Rabeneck & Marjolein van Ballegooijen & Ann G Zauber & Lawrence F Paszat & Jeffrey S Hoch & Jean H E Yong & Sonja Kroep & Jill Tinmouth & Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar, 2017. "Harms, benefits and costs of fecal immunochemical testing versus guaiac fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-15, March.
    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. James Kingsley & Siddharth Karanth & Frances Lee Revere & Deepak Agrawal, 2016. "Cost Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy Depends on Adequate Bowel Preparation Rates – A Modeling Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-17, December.
    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. Tristan M Snowsill & Neil A J Ryan & Emma J Crosbie & Ian M Frayling & D Gareth Evans & Chris J Hyde, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer in the UK setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, August.

    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. R. Hoorn & A. Donders & M. Oppe & P. Stalmeier, 2014. "The Better than Dead Method: Feasibility and Interpretation of a Valuation Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 789-799, August.
    2. Paal Joranger & Arild Nesbakken & Halfdan Sorbye & Geir Hoff & Arne Oshaug & Eline Aas, 2020. "Survival and costs of colorectal cancer treatment and effects of changing treatment strategies: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 321-334, April.
    3. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    4. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    5. Laurence M. Djatche & Stefan Varga & Robert D. Lieberthal, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Aspirin Adherence for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 371-380, December.
    6. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    7. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    9. Barbara Graaff & Lei Si & Amanda L. Neil & Kwang Chien Yee & Kristy Sanderson & Lyle C. Gurrin & Andrew J. Palmer, 2017. "Population Screening for Hereditary Haemochromatosis in Australia: Construction and Validation of a State-Transition Cost-Effectiveness Model," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 37-51, March.
    10. Christopher Fitzpatrick & Katherine Floyd, 2012. "A Systematic Review of the Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Treatment for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 63-80, January.
    11. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Carer Experience Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 458-468, May.
    12. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    13. Ching-Yun Wei & Ruben G. W. Quek & Guillermo Villa & Shravanthi R. Gandra & Carol A. Forbes & Steve Ryder & Nigel Armstrong & Sohan Deshpande & Steven Duffy & Jos Kleijnen & Peter Lindgren, 2017. "A Systematic Review of Cardiovascular Outcomes-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lipid-Lowering Therapies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 297-318, March.
    14. Jose L Burgos & Thomas L Patterson & Joshua S Graff-Zivin & James G Kahn & M Gudelia Rangel & M Remedios Lozada & Hugo Staines & Steffanie A Strathdee, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness of Combined Sexual and Injection Risk Reduction Interventions among Female Sex Workers Who Inject Drugs in Two Very Distinct Mexican Border Cities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    15. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    16. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    17. Kim Jeong & John Cairns, 2013. "Review of economic evidence in the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, December.
    18. Susan Griffin & Helen Weatherly & Gerry Richardson & Mike Drummond, 2008. "Methodological issues in undertaking independent cost-effectiveness analysis for NICE: the case of therapies for ADHD," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(2), pages 137-145, May.
    19. William Wong & Josh Carlson & Rahber Thariani & David Veenstra, 2010. "Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomics," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(11), pages 1001-1013, November.
    20. Fleurbaey, Marc & Zuber, Stéphane, 2017. "Fair management of social risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 666-706.

    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:34:y:2014:i:6:p:809-818. 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.