IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v23y2025i1d10.1007_s40258-024-00908-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Caregiver and General Population Preferences for Dependency-Related Health States

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Rodríguez-Míguez

    (ECOBAS, Universidade de Vigo, GRIEE
    Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Galicia Sur, Hospital Álvaro Cunqueiro)

  • Antonio Sampayo

    (ECOBAS, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela)

Abstract

Objective We assess whether the preferences regarding dependency-related health states as stated by informal caregivers are aligned with those expressed by the general population. Methods The preferences of a sample of 139 Spanish informal caregivers of dependent patients are compared with those obtained via a sample of 312 persons, also from the Spanish general population. We assess 24 dependency states extracted from the DEP-6D using the time trade-off method. Descriptive statistics and regression methods are used to explore differences between the two samples. Results Mean difference tests establish that, for all but one of the 24 states, there are no significant differences between the samples. The estimated mean values ranged from − 0.64 to 0.60 for the caregiver sample and from − 0.60 to 0.65 for the general population sample, with a correlation of 0.96. On average, the classification of states as better or worse than dead matched in both samples (except for one state). Regression models also show that sample type does not have a significant average impact. After we introduce interaction effects, only the most severe level of two dimensions, cognitive problems and housework, result in significant differences—with the caregiver sample reporting higher values for the former, and lower values for the latter. Conclusion Caregivers and the general population exhibit quite similar preferences concerning dependency-related health states. This suggests that the results of cost-utility analyses, and the resource allocation decisions based on them, would likewise not be significantly affected by the preferences used to generate the weighting algorithm.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Antonio Sampayo, 2025. "Comparison of Caregiver and General Population Preferences for Dependency-Related Health States," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 105-117, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00908-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00908-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-024-00908-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/s40258-024-00908-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. Nancy Devlin & Ken Buckingham & Koonal Shah & Aki Tsuchiya & Carl Tilling & Grahame Wilkinson & Ben van Hout, 2013. "A Comparison Of Alternative Variants Of The Lead And Lag Time Tto," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 517-532, May.
    2. Donald L. Patrick & Helene E. Starks & Kevin C. Cain & Richard F. Uhlmann & Robert A. Pearlman, 1994. "Measuring Preferences for Health States Worse than Death," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(1), pages 9-18, February.
    3. Leslie A. Lenert & Daniel J. Cher & Mary K. Goldstein & Merlynn R. Bergen & Alan Garber, 1998. "The Effect of Search Procedures on Utility Elicitations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(1), pages 76-83, January.
    4. Xavier Badia & Montserrat Roset & Michael Herdman & Paul Kind, 2001. "A Comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish General Population Time Trade-off Values for EQ-5D Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(1), pages 7-16, February.
    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. 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.
    2. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh & Marwa Diab El Harake & Dalia Dawoud & Donna Rowen & John Brazier, 2020. "Examining the Feasibility and Acceptability of Valuing the Arabic Version of SF-6D in a Lebanese Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Juan Ramos-Goñi & Oliver Rivero-Arias & María Errea & Elly Stolk & Michael Herdman & Juan Cabasés, 2013. "Dealing with the health state ‘dead’ when using discrete choice experiments to obtain values for EQ-5D-5L heath states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 33-42, July.
    4. Samer A. Kharroubi & Yara Beyh, 2021. "Bayesian modeling of health state preferences: could borrowing strength from existing countries’ valuations produce better estimates," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 773-788, July.
    5. José María Abellán Perpiñán & Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez & Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez & Ildefonso Méndez, 2012. "Lowering The ‘Floor’ Of The Sf‐6d Scoring Algorithm Using A Lottery Equivalent Method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(11), pages 1271-1285, November.
    6. Rodríguez-Míguez, E. & Abellán-Perpiñán, J.M. & Alvarez, X.C. & González, X.M. & Sampayo, A.R., 2016. "The DEP-6D, a new preference-based measure to assess health states of dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 210-219.
    7. L. M. Lamers & J. McDonnell & P. F. M. Stalmeier & P. F. M. Krabbe & J. J. V. Busschbach, 2006. "The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1121-1132, October.
    8. Koonal K. Shah & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Simone Kreimeier & Nancy J. Devlin, 2020. "An exploration of methods for obtaining 0 = dead anchors for latent scale EQ-5D-Y values," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1091-1103, September.
    9. P. Wang & M. Li & G. Liu & J. Thumboo & N. Luo, 2015. "Do Chinese have similar health-state preferences? A comparison of mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(8), pages 857-863, November.
    10. Yan Feng & Arne Risa Hole & Milad Karimi & Aki Tsuchiya & Ben van Hout, 2018. "An exploration of the non‐iterative time trade‐off method to value health states," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(8), pages 1247-1263, August.
    11. Ruixuan Jiang & Thomas Kohlmann & Todd A. Lee & Axel Mühlbacher & James Shaw & Surrey Walton & A. Simon Pickard, 2021. "Increasing respondent engagement in composite time trade-off tasks by imposing three minimum trade-offs to improve data quality," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(1), pages 17-33, February.
    12. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    13. José M. Labeaga & Xisco Oliver & Amedeo Spadaro, "undated". "Measuring Changes in Health Capital," Working Papers 2005-15, FEDEA.
    14. 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.
    15. Samer A. Kharroubi & Donna Rowen, 2019. "Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to select a smaller sample of health states?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 245-255, March.
    16. Richard Norman & Brendan Mulhern & Emily Lancsar & Paula Lorgelly & Julie Ratcliffe & Deborah Street & Rosalie Viney, 2023. "The Use of a Discrete Choice Experiment Including Both Duration and Dead for the Development of an EQ-5D-5L Value Set for Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 427-438, April.
    17. Stevens, K, 2010. "Valuation of the Child Health Utility Index 9D (CHU9D)," MPRA Paper 29938, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    19. Jen-Yu Amy Chang & Chien-Ning Hsu & Juan Manuel Ramos-Goñi & Nan Luo & Hsiang-Wen Lin & Fang-Ju Lin, 2024. "Beyond 10-year lead-times in EQ-5D-5L: leveraging alternative lead-times in willingness-to-accept questions to capture preferences for worse-than-dead states and their implication," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(6), pages 1041-1055, August.
    20. Nan Luo & Minghui Li & Elly Stolk & Nancy Devlin, 2013. "The effects of lead time and visual aids in TTO valuation: a study of the EQ-VT framework," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(1), pages 15-24, July.

    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:23:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00908-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.