IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v35y2015i3p292-304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Multi-attribute Utility Instruments Adequately Account for Subjective Well-being?

Author

Listed:
  • Jeff Richardson
  • Gang Chen
  • Munir A. Khan
  • Angelo Iezzi

Abstract

Introduction: The quality of life is included in cost utility analyses by weighting the relevant years of life by health state utilities. However, the utilities predicted by multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) for this purpose do not correlate highly with the subjective well-being (SWB) of people experiencing the health states. This suggests that MAUIs may not take account of the SWB experienced by patients. This article explores an alternative hypothesis: that a failure of an MAUI to account for variation in SWB is primarily a result of the failure of its descriptive system to include the elements of health that determine SWB and that cannot therefore be included in assessment of the health state utility. Methods: Survey data are used to determine the extent to which 6 MAUIs with significantly different descriptive systems explain differences between the SWB of the healthy public and patients in 7 disease areas. Results: The EQ-5D-5L takes least account and AQoL-8D most account of SWB. AQoL-8D overpredicts the loss of SWB in 2 cases where hedonic adaptation is known to occur. Discussion: Results suggest that, to a large extent, utility can account for variation in SWB. The case for replacing utility with SWB in economic evaluation studies has arisen, in part, because elements of importance for SWB have been omitted from the descriptive systems of commonly used MAUIs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeff Richardson & Gang Chen & Munir A. Khan & Angelo Iezzi, 2015. "Can Multi-attribute Utility Instruments Adequately Account for Subjective Well-being?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 292-304, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:35:y:2015:i:3:p:292-304
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14567354
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X14567354
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X14567354?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. Simon, Judit & Anand, Paul & Gray, Alastair & Rugkåsa, Jorun & Yeeles, Ksenija & Burns, Tom, 2013. "Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 187-196.
    2. Ingrid Robeyns, 2005. "The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 93-117.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    4. Smith, Dylan M. & Brown, Stephanie L. & Ubel, Peter A., 2008. "Are subjective well-being measures any better than decision utility measures?," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 85-91, January.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Alan B. Krueger, 2006. "Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, Winter.
    6. Joanna Coast & Richard Smith & Paula Lorgelly, 2008. "Should the capability approach be applied in Health Economics?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 667-670, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Robert Cummins, 1998. "The Second Approximation to an International Standard for Life Satisfaction," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 307-334, March.
    9. Böckerman, Petri & Johansson, Edvard & Saarni, Samuli I., 2011. "Do established health-related quality-of-life measures adequately capture the impact of chronic conditions on subjective well-being?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 91-95, April.
    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. Lamu, Admassu N. & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2016. "The relative importance of health, income and social relations for subjective well-being: An integrative analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 176-185.
    2. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Hareth Al‐Janabi, 2018. "Do capability and functioning differ? A study of U.K. survey responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 465-479, March.
    3. Joanna Coast, 2019. "Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 779-784, August.
    4. Enrica Chiappero‐Martinetti & Paola Salardi & Francesco Scervini, 2019. "Estimating conversion rates: A new empirical strategy with an application to health care in Italy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 748-764, June.
    5. Paul Mark Mitchell & Sridhar Venkatapuram & Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Joanna Coast, 2017. "Are Quality-Adjusted Life Years a Good Proxy Measure of Individual Capabilities?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(6), pages 637-646, June.
    6. Senik, Claudia, 2009. "Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 408-424, October.
    7. Guven, Cahit & Senik, Claudia & Stichnoth, Holger, 2012. "You can’t be happier than your wife. Happiness gaps and divorce," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 110-130.
    8. van Hoorn, André, 2018. "Is the happiness approach to measuring preferences valid?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 53-65.
    9. Thi Truong An Hoang & Andreas Knabe, 2021. "Time Use, Unemployment, and Well-Being: An Empirical Analysis Using British Time-Use Data," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 2525-2548, August.
    10. Naomi Friedman-Sokuler & Claudia Senik, 2022. "Time-Use and Subjective Well-Being: Is there a Preference for Activity Diversity?," PSE Working Papers halshs-03828272, HAL.
    11. Hajdu, Tamás & Hajdu, Gábor, 2011. "A hasznosság és a relatív jövedelem kapcsolatának vizsgálata magyar adatok segítségével [Examining the relation of utility and relative income using Hungarian data]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 56-73.
    12. Caporale, Guglielmo Maria & Georgellis, Yannis & Tsitsianis, Nicholas & Yin, Ya Ping, 2009. "Income and happiness across Europe: Do reference values matter?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 42-51, February.
    13. Paul Anand & Laurence S. J. Roope & Anthony J. Culyer & Ron Smith, 2020. "Disability and multidimensional quality of life: A capability approach to health status assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(7), pages 748-765, July.
    14. Matthew D Rablen, 2012. "The promotion of local wellbeing: A primer for policymakers," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 27(3), pages 297-314, May.
    15. van Hoorn, Andre, 2016. "Reliability and Validity of the Happiness Approach to Measuring Preferences," MPRA Paper 79977, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. DECANCQ, Koen & FLEURBAEY, Marc & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2014. "Inequality, income, and well-being," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014018, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    17. John F. Helliwell & Christopher P. Barrington-Leigh, 2010. "Measuring and Understanding Subjective Well-Being," NBER Working Papers 15887, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Naomi Friedman-Sokuler & Claudia Senik, 2023. "Time-Use and Subjective Well-Being: Is Diversity Really the Spice of Life?," Research in Labor Economics, in: Time Use in Economics, volume 51, pages 1-33, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    19. Alan B. Krueger & Daniel Kahneman & David Schkade & Norbert Schwarz & Arthur A. Stone, 2009. "National Time Accounting: The Currency of Life," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations: National Accounts of Time Use and Well-Being, pages 9-86, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Magnani, Elisabetta & Zhu, Rong, 2018. "Does kindness lead to happiness? Voluntary activities and subjective well-being," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 20-28.

    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:35:y:2015:i:3:p:292-304. 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.