IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v15y2017i1d10.1007_s40258-016-0275-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health State Utility Values for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Review and Advice

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Butt

    (UCL Institute of Ophthalmology)

  • Adnan Tufail

    (UCL Institute of Ophthalmology
    Moorfields Eye Hospital)

  • Gary Rubin

    (UCL Institute of Ophthalmology)

Abstract

Health state utility values are a major source of uncertainty in economic evaluations of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This review identifies and critiques published utility values and methods for eliciting de novo utility values in AMD. We describe how utility values have been used in healthcare decision making and provide guidance on the choice of utility values for future economic evaluations for AMD. Literature was searched using PubMed, and health technology assessments (HTA) were searched using HTA agency websites to identify articles reporting utility values or approaches to derive utility values in AMD and articles applying utilities for use in healthcare decision making relating to treatments for AMD. A total of 70 studies qualified for data extraction, 22 of which were classified as containing utility values and/or elicitation methods, and 48 were classified as using utility values in decision making. A large number of studies have elicited utility values for AMD, although those applied to decision making have focused on a few of these. There is an appreciation of the challenges in the measurement and valuation of health states, with recent studies addressing challenges such as the insensitivity of generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires and utility in the worse-seeing eye. We would encourage careful consideration when choosing utility values in decision making and an explicit critique of their applicability to the decision problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Butt & Adnan Tufail & Gary Rubin, 2017. "Health State Utility Values for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Review and Advice," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 23-32, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0275-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0275-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0275-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-016-0275-9?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. Brazier, John & Ratcliffe, Julie & Salomon, Joshua & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2016. "Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780198725923.
    2. Albrecht, Gary L. & Devlieger, Patrick J., 1999. "The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 977-988, April.
    3. Thomas Butt & Praveen Patel & Adnan Tufail & Gary Rubin, 2014. "Modelling Cost Effectiveness in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: The Impact of Using Contrast Sensitivity vs. Visual Acuity," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 289-297, June.
    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. 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.
    2. Sara Olofsson & Katarina Gralén & Christina Hoxer & Paul Okhuoya & Ulf Persson, 2022. "The impact on quality of life of diet restrictions and disease symptoms associated with phenylketonuria: a time trade-off and discrete choice experiment study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 993-1005, August.
    3. Anna Philipson & Lars Hagberg & Liselotte Hermansson & Jan Karlsson & Emma Ohlsson-Nevo & Linda Ryen, 2023. "Mapping the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) onto SF-6D Using Swedish General Population Data," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(5), pages 765-776, September.
    4. Joanna M Charles & Deirdre M Harrington & Melanie J Davies & Charlotte L Edwardson & Trish Gorely & Danielle H Bodicoat & Kamlesh Khunti & Lauren B Sherar & Thomas Yates & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, 2019. "Micro-costing and a cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Anita Hubley & Lara Russell & Anita Palepu & Stephen Hwang, 2014. "Subjective Quality of Life Among Individuals who are Homeless: A Review of Current Knowledge," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(1), pages 509-524, January.
    6. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    9. Zhongliang Zhou & Yu Fang & Zhiying Zhou & Dan Li & Dan Wang & Yanli Li & Li Lu & Jianmin Gao & Gang Chen, 2017. "Assessing Income-Related Health Inequality and Horizontal Inequity in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 241-256, May.
    10. Eliza Lai Yi Wong & Richard Huan Xu & Annie Wai Ling Cheung, 2020. "Health-related quality of life in elderly people with hypertension and the estimation of minimally important difference using EQ-5D-5L in Hong Kong SAR, China," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(6), pages 869-879, August.
    11. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    12. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Anju Keetharuth & Aki Tsuchiya & Clara Mukuria, 2016. "Comparison of Modes of Administration and Alternative Formats for Eliciting Societal Preferences for Burden of Illness," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 89-104, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    15. S. Bentolhoda Mousavi & Dusica Lecic-Tosevski & Hassan Khalili & S. Zeinab Mousavi, 2020. "To be able, or disable, that is the question: A critical discussion on how language affects the stigma and self-determination in people with parability," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 66(5), pages 424-430, August.
    16. Octave Jokung & Serge Macé, 2013. "Long-term health investment when people underestimate their adaptation to old age-related health problems," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 1003-1013, December.
    17. Richard Cookson & Owen Cotton-Barrett & Matthew Adler & Miqdad Asaria & Toby Ord, 2016. "Years of good life based on income and health: Re-engineering cost-benefit analysis to examine policy impacts on wellbeing and distributive justice," Working Papers 132cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    18. Chen, Duan-Rung & Chang, Ly-Yun & Yang, Meng-Li, 2008. "Gender-specific responses to social determinants associated with self-perceived health in Taiwan: A multilevel approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(10), pages 1630-1640, November.
    19. Georgina Jones & Victoria Brennan & Richard Jacques & Hilary Wood & Simon Dixon & Stephen Radley, 2018. "Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, January.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0275-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.