IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v34y2016i4d10.1007_s40273-015-0357-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Pills Have No Ills? Capturing the Impact of Direct Treatment Disutility

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Thompson

    (The University of Manchester)

  • Bruce Guthrie

    (University of Dundee)

  • Katherine Payne

    (The University of Manchester)

Abstract

Model-based economic evaluations should capture the impact on all costs and outcomes relevant to the chosen study perspective and time horizon. This editorial defines what is meant by direct treatment disutility (DTD) and describes why it could be an important harm that those designing model-based evaluations should consider. Some existing estimates of DTD identified from the current literature are summarised in terms of the methods used to elicit the values and the size of the estimated DTD. Model-based studies that include DTDs are also summarised. It was found that the values used within model-based economic evaluations (ranging from 0.00384 to 0.02) were typically smaller than the directly elicited values from the existing literature (0–0.033). Yet even with conservative estimates of DTDs, cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to their inclusion. The editorial concludes by discussing future methodological and empirical research needed to estimate more robust DTD values.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Thompson & Bruce Guthrie & Katherine Payne, 2016. "Do Pills Have No Ills? Capturing the Impact of Direct Treatment Disutility," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 333-336, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-015-0357-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0357-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-015-0357-9
    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/s40273-015-0357-9?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. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Exel, N. Job A. van & Berg, Bernard van den & Bos, Geertruidis A.M. van den & Koopmanschap, Marc A., 2005. "Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 85-99, September.
    2. Mark J. Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Mike Drummond & Chris McCabe, 2006. "Whither trial‐based economic evaluation for health care decision making?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 677-687, July.
    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. Giorgio Di Gessa & Christian Deindl, 2024. "Determinants of trajectories of informal caregiving in later life: evidence from England," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Carer Experience Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 458-468, May.
    3. Renee Lévesque & Daniele Marcelli & Héloïse Cardinal & Marie-Line Caron & Muriel Grooteman & Michiel Bots & Peter Blankestijn & Menso Nubé & Aileen Grassmann & Bernard Canaud & Afschin Gandjour, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High-Efficiency Hemodiafiltration Versus Low-Flux Hemodialysis Based on the Canadian Arm of the CONTRAST Study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 647-659, December.
    4. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    5. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2011. "Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 930-944, August.
    6. Bou, Camille, 2023. "Factors associated with the quality-of-life of young unpaid carers: a systematic review of the evidence from 2003 to 2019," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118357, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Camille Bou, 2023. "Factors Associated with the Quality-of-Life of Young Unpaid Carers: A Systematic Review of the Evidence from 2003 to 2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-15, March.
    8. Sean Docking & Lan Gao & Zanfina Ademi & Christian Bonello & Rachelle Buchbinder, 2023. "Use of Decision-Analytic Modelling to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness of Diagnostic Imaging of the Spine, Shoulder, and Knee: A Scoping Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 467-475, May.
    9. Renske J. Hoefman & Job Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2017. "Measuring Care-Related Quality of Life of Caregivers for Use in Economic Evaluations: CarerQol Tariffs for Australia, Germany, Sweden, UK, and US," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 469-478, April.
    10. Rossarin Soottipong Gray & Umaporn Pattaravanich, 2020. "Internal and external resources, tiredness and the subjective well-being of family caregivers of older adults: a case study from western Thailand, Southeast Asia," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 349-359, September.
    11. Marta O. Soares & Simon Walker & Stephen J. Palmer & Mark J. Sculpher, 2018. "Establishing the Value of Diagnostic and Prognostic Tests in Health Technology Assessment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 495-508, May.
    12. Mohsen Ghaffari Darab & Lidia Engel & Dennis Henzler & Michael Lauerer & Eckhard Nagel & Vicki Brown & Cathrine Mihalopoulos, 2024. "Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Interventions for Dementia: An Updated Systematic Review and Quality Assessment," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 503-525, July.
    13. Tara A. Lavelle & Brittany N. D’Cruz & Babak Mohit & Wendy J. Ungar & Lisa A. Prosser & Kate Tsiplova & Montserrat Vera-Llonch & Pei-Jung Lin, 2019. "Family Spillover Effects in Pediatric Cost-Utility Analyses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 163-174, April.
    14. Eve Wittenberg & Lyndon P. James & Lisa A. Prosser, 2019. "Spillover Effects on Caregivers’ and Family Members’ Utility: A Systematic Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 475-499, April.
    15. James A. Hall & Kika Konstantinou & Martyn Lewis & Raymond Oppong & Reuben Ogollah & Sue Jowett, 2019. "Systematic Review of Decision Analytic Modelling in Economic Evaluations of Low Back Pain and Sciatica," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 467-491, August.
    16. Gemma E. Shields & Becky Pennington & Ash Bullement & Stuart Wright & Jamie Elvidge, 2022. "Out of Date or Best Before? A Commentary on the Relevance of Economic Evaluations Over Time," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 249-256, March.
    17. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2013-035 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Juan Oliva-Moreno & Marta Trapero-Bertran & Luz Maria Peña-Longobardo & Raúl del Pozo-Rubio, 2017. "The Valuation of Informal Care in Cost-of-Illness Studies: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 331-345, March.
    19. Rebekah Hall & Antonieta Medina-Lara & Willie Hamilton & Anne E. Spencer, 2022. "Attributes Used for Cancer Screening Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(3), pages 269-285, May.
    20. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    21. Brent Opmeer & Corianne Borgie & Ben Mol & Patrick Bossuyt, 2010. "Assessing Preferences Regarding Healthcare Interventions that Involve Non-Health Outcomes," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, 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:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s40273-015-0357-9. 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.