IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v20y2019i1d10.1007_s10198-019-01065-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient and general population values for luminal and perianal fistulising Crohn’s disease health states

Author

Listed:
  • Fanni Rencz

    (Corvinus University of Budapest
    Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

  • Peep F. M. Stalmeier

    (Radboud University Medical Centre)

  • Márta Péntek

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Valentin Brodszky

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Gábor Ruzsa

    (Eötvös Loránd University of Sciences
    Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Lóránt Gönczi

    (Semmelweis University)

  • Károly Palatka

    (University of Debrecen)

  • László Herszényi

    (Hungarian Defence Forces)

  • Eszter Schäfer

    (Hungarian Defence Forces)

  • János Banai

    (Hungarian Defence Forces)

  • Mariann Rutka

    (University of Szeged)

  • László Gulácsi

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • Peter L. Lakatos

    (Semmelweis University
    McGill University, MUHC, Montreal General Hospital)

Abstract

Background In patients with Crohn’s disease (CD), luminal disease activity paralleled by perianal fistulas may seriously impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Health utility values are not available from patients with CD that reflect the health loss associated with both luminal and perianal CD. Objective To generate utilities for luminal and concomitant perianal fistulising CD health states directly from patients and from members of the general public. Methods A cross-sectional survey was undertaken enrolling CD patients and a convenience sample of members of the general population. Respondents were asked to evaluate four common CD heath states [severe luminal disease (sCD), mild luminal disease (mCD), severe luminal disease with active perianal fistulas (sPFCD), and mild luminal disease with active perianal fistulas (mPFCD)] by 10-year time trade-off (TTO). In addition, patients assessed their current HRQoL by the TTO method. Results Responses of 206 patients (40.8% with perianal fistulas) and 221 members of the general population were analysed. Mean ± SD utilities among patients for sPFCD, sCD, mPFCD and mCD states were 0.69 ± 0.33, 0.73 ± 0.31, 0.80 ± 0.29 and 0.87 ± 0.26. Corresponding values in the general public were: 0.59 ± 0.31, 0.65 ± 0.29, 0.80 ± 0.26 and 0.88 ± 0.25. Patients with active perianal fistulas, previous non-resection surgeries, and higher pain intensity scores valued their current health as worse (p

Suggested Citation

  • Fanni Rencz & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Márta Péntek & Valentin Brodszky & Gábor Ruzsa & Lóránt Gönczi & Károly Palatka & László Herszényi & Eszter Schäfer & János Banai & Mariann Rutka & László Gulácsi , 2019. "Patient and general population values for luminal and perianal fistulising Crohn’s disease health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 91-100, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:20:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-019-01065-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-019-01065-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-019-01065-y
    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/s10198-019-01065-y?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. Versteegh, M.M. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2016. "Patient and general public preferences for health states: A call to reconsider current guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 66-74.
    2. Holger J. Schünemann & Elisabeth Ståhl & Peggy Austin & Elie Akl & David Armstrong & Gordon H. Guyatt, 2004. "A Comparison of Narrative and Table Formats for Presenting Hypothetical Health States to Patients with Gastrointestinal or Pulmonary Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(1), pages 53-60, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    5. David John Mott, 2018. "Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: Is HTA Falling Behind?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 249-252, 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. David J. Mott & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale, 2023. "Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 413-423, April.
    2. Richard D. Smith, 2008. "Contingent valuation in health care: does it matter how the ‘good’ is described?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 607-617, May.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Louis S. Matza & Kristina S. Boye & David H. Feeny & Lee Bowman & Joseph A. Johnston & Katie D. Stewart & Kelly McDaniel & Jessica Jordan, 2016. "The time horizon matters: results of an exploratory study varying the timeframe in time trade-off and standard gamble utility elicitation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(8), pages 979-990, November.
    6. José M. Labeaga & Xisco Oliver & Amedeo Spadaro, "undated". "Measuring Changes in Health Capital," Working Papers 2005-15, FEDEA.
    7. Jeremy Chancellor & Samuel Aballéa & Alison Lawrence & Rob Sheldon & Sandrine Cure & Juliette Plun-Favreau & Nick Marchant, 2008. "Preferences of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus for Inhaled versus Injectable Insulin Regimens," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 217-234, March.
    8. Kristina Burström & Magnus Johannesson & Finn Diderichsen, 2003. "The value of the change in health in Sweden 1980/81 to 1996/97," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 637-654, August.
    9. van Hulsen, Merel A.J. & Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & van Exel, Job, 2023. "Preferences for investment in and allocation of additional healthcare capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    10. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2013. "A new axiomatic approach to the evaluation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-523.
    11. McCabe, Christopher & Brazier, John & Gilks, Peter & Tsuchiya, Aki & Roberts, Jennifer & O'Hagan, Anthony & Stevens, Katherine, 2006. "Using rank data to estimate health state utility models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 418-431, May.
    12. David Mayston, "undated". "Developing a Framework Theory for Assessing the Benefits of Careers Guidance," Discussion Papers 02/08, Department of Economics, University of York.
    13. Islam, M. Kamrul & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Gullberg, Bo & Lindström, Martin & Merlo, Juan, 2008. "Social capital externalities and mortality in Sweden," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 19-42, March.
    14. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    15. Cookson, Richard, 2000. "Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 369-401, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Hammer, Jeffrey S., 1992. "To prescribe or not to prescribe: On the regulation of pharmaceuticals in less developed countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 959-964, May.
    18. Smith, Richard D. & Richardson, Jeff, 2005. "Can we estimate the `social' value of a QALY?: Four core issues to resolve," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 77-84, September.
    19. Thomas Hammerschmidt & Hans-Peter Zeitler & Markus Gulich & Reiner Leidl, 2004. "A Comparison of Different Strategies to Collect Standard Gamble Utilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(5), pages 493-503, October.
    20. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 159, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crohn’s disease; Perianal fistula; Quality of life; Time trade-off; Utility; QALY; Hungary;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:eujhec:v:20:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-019-01065-y. 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.