IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v15y2017i3d10.1007_s40258-016-0282-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utility Estimates of Disease-Specific Health States in Prostate Cancer from Three Different Perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Katharine S. Gries

    (Evidera)

  • Dean A. Regier

    (BC Cancer Agency Research Centre
    University of British Columbia)

  • Scott D. Ramsey

    (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center)

  • Donald L. Patrick

    (University of Washington)

Abstract

Objective To develop a statistical model generating utility estimates for prostate cancer specific health states, using preference weights derived from the perspectives of prostate cancer patients, men at risk for prostate cancer, and society. Methods Utility estimate values were calculated using standard gamble (SG) methodology. Study participants valued 18 prostate-specific health states with the five attributes: sexual function, urinary function, bowel function, pain, and emotional well-being. Appropriateness of model (linear regression, mixed effects, or generalized estimating equation) to generate prostate cancer utility estimates was determined by paired t-tests to compare observed and predicted values. Mixed-corrected standard SG utility estimates to account for loss aversion were calculated based on prospect theory. Results 132 study participants assigned values to the health states (n = 40 men at risk for prostate cancer; n = 43 men with prostate cancer; n = 49 general population). In total, 792 valuations were elicited (six health states for each 132 participants). The most appropriate model for the classification system was a mixed effects model; correlations between the mean observed and predicted utility estimates were greater than 0.80 for each perspective. Conclusions Developing a health-state classification system with preference weights for three different perspectives demonstrates the relative importance of main effects between populations. The predicted values for men with prostate cancer support the hypothesis that patients experiencing the disease state assign higher utility estimates to health states and there is a difference in valuations made by patients and the general population.

Suggested Citation

  • Katharine S. Gries & Dean A. Regier & Scott D. Ramsey & Donald L. Patrick, 2017. "Utility Estimates of Disease-Specific Health States in Prostate Cancer from Three Different Perspectives," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 375-384, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0282-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0282-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0282-x
    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/s40258-016-0282-x?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. Abe, Yasuyo & Gee, Kevin A., 2014. "Sensitivity analyses for clustered data: An illustration from a large-scale clustered randomized controlled trial in education," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 26-34.
    2. F. E. van Nooten & X. Koolman & W. B. F. Brouwer, 2009. "The influence of subjective life expectancy on health state valuations using a 10 year TTO," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(5), pages 549-558, May.
    3. Dolan, Paul & Roberts, Jennifer, 2002. "To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 919-929, March.
    4. Robinson, Angela & Dolan, Paul & Williams, Alan, 1997. "Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: What lies behind the numbers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1289-1297, October.
    5. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    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. F. E. van Nooten & X. Koolman & W. B. F. Brouwer, 2009. "The influence of subjective life expectancy on health state valuations using a 10 year TTO," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(5), pages 549-558, May.
    2. Brazier, J, 2005. "Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research," MPRA Paper 29762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Anne Spencer & Ewan Tomeny & Ruben E. Mujica-Mota & Angela Robinson & Judith Covey & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2019. "Do time trade-off values fully capture attitudes that are relevant to health-related choices?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(4), pages 559-568, June.
    4. Emelie Heintz & Marieke Krol & Lars-Åke Levin, 2013. "The Impact of Patients’ Subjective Life Expectancy on Time Tradeoff Valuations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(2), pages 261-270, February.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    6. Floortje Nooten & Jan Busschbach & Michel Agthoven & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2018. "What should we know about the person behind a TTO?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(9), pages 1207-1211, December.
    7. Sahar Al Shabasy & Fatima Al Sayah & Maggie Abbassi & Samar Farid, 2022. "Determinants of Health Preferences Using Data from the Egyptian EQ-5D-5L Valuation Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(5), pages 589-598, September.
    8. Benjamin M. Craig & Sulabha Ramachandran, 2006. "Relative risk of a shuffled deck: a generalizable logical consistency criterion for sample selection in health state valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 835-848, August.
    9. Dolan, Paul & Stalmeier, Peep, 2003. "The validity of time trade-off values in calculating QALYs: constant proportional time trade-off versus the proportional heuristic," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 445-458, May.
    10. Arthur Attema & Werner Brouwer, 2012. "The way that you do it? An elaborate test of procedural invariance of TTO, using a choice-based design," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(4), pages 491-500, August.
    11. Joshua A. Salomon & Christopher J.L. Murray, 2004. "A multi‐method approach to measuring health‐state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, March.
    12. Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Jan J. V. Busschbach & Leida M. Lamers & Paul F. M. Krabbe, 2005. "The gap effect: discontinuities of preferences around dead," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 679-685, July.
    13. 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.
    14. Patricia Cubi-Molla & Koonal Shah & Kristina Burström, 2018. "Experience-Based Values: A Framework for Classifying Different Types of Experience in Health Valuation Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 253-270, June.
    15. Trude Arnesen & Mari Trommald, 2005. "Are QALYs based on time trade‐off comparable? – A systematic review of TTO methodologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 39-53, January.
    16. Mônica Viegas Andrade & Kenya Noronha & Paul Kind & Carla de Barros Reis & Lucas Resende de Carvalho, 2016. "Logical Inconsistencies in 3 Preference Elicitation Methods for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 242-252, February.
    17. Rachel Baker & Angela Robinson, 2004. "Responses to standard gambles: are preferences ‘well constructed’?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 37-48, January.
    18. David Feeny, 2013. "Standardization and Regulatory Guidelines May Inhibit Science and Reduce the Usefulness of Analyses Based on the Application of Preference-Based Measures for Policy Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 316-319, April.
    19. P. Stalmeier & A. Verheijen, 2013. "Maximal endurable time states and the standard gamble: more preference reversals," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 971-977, December.
    20. Karimi, M. & Brazier, J. & Paisley, S., 2017. "How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 80-88.

    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:3:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0282-x. 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.