IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v35y2017i3d10.1007_s40273-016-0470-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Abreu Lourenco

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Marion Haas

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Jane Hall

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Rosalie Viney

    (University of Technology Sydney)

Abstract

Objective This review explores the evidence from the literature regarding how meta-health effects (effects other than health resulting from the consumption of health care) are valued for use in economic evaluations. Methods A systematic review of the published literature (the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit and SocINDEX databases were searched for publications in March 2016, plus manual searching) investigated the associations between study methods and the resulting values for meta-health effects estimated for use in economic evaluations. The review considered which meta-health effects were being valued and how this differed by evaluation approach, intervention investigated, source of funds and year of publication. Detailed reasons for differences observed between values for comparable meta-health effects were explored, accounting for the method of valuation. Results The search of the literature revealed 71 studies of interest; 35% involved drug interventions, with convenience, information and process of care the three meta-health effects most often investigated. Key associations with the meta-health effects were the evaluation method, the intervention, and the source of funds. Relative values for meta-health effects ranged from 0.9% to 68% of the overall value reported in a study. For a given meta-health effect, the magnitude of the effect evaluated and how the meta-health effect was described and framed relative to overall health explained the differences in relative values. Conclusions Evidence from the literature shows variability in how meta-health effects are being measured for use in economic evaluations. Understanding the sources of that variability is important if decision makers are to have confidence in how meta-health effects are valued.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Abreu Lourenco & Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 347-362, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0470-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0470-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-016-0470-4
    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/s40273-016-0470-4?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. Salkeld, G. & Quine, S. & Cameron, I. D., 2004. "What constitutes success in preventive health care? A case study in assessing the benefits of hip protectors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(8), pages 1593-1601, October.
    2. Karen Gerard & Marian Shanahan & Jordan Louviere, 2003. "Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: A pilot study of breast screening participation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(9), pages 1073-1085.
    3. Protière, Christel & Donaldson, Cam & Luchini, Stéphane & Paul Moatti, Jean & Shackley, Phil, 2004. "The impact of information on non-health attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programmes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(7), pages 1257-1269, April.
    4. Kirsten Howard & Glenn Salkeld & Kirsten McCaffery & Les Irwig, 2008. "HPV triage testing or repeat Pap smear for the management of atypical squamous cells (ASCUS) on Pap smear: is there evidence of process utility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 593-605, May.
    5. Marti, Joachim, 2012. "A best–worst scaling survey of adolescents' level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 87-97.
    6. Stephen Birch & Joy Melnikow & Miriam Kuppermann, 2003. "Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: Testing for process utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 879-884, October.
    7. Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 1997. "Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 699-707, March.
    8. Ryan, Mandy, 1999. "Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 535-546, February.
    9. Johanna Cook & Jeff Richardson & Andrew Street, 1994. "A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: Methodological issues and results," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(3), pages 157-168, May.
    10. Borghi, Josephine & Jan, Stephen, 2008. "Measuring the benefits of health promotion programmes: Application of the contingent valuation method," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 235-248, August.
    11. Denzil G. Fiebig & Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Marion Haas & Deborah J. Street, 2011. "Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(S1), pages 35-52, September.
    12. Aleksandra Torbica & Giovanni Fattore & Fabio Ayala, 2014. "Eliciting Preferences to Inform Patient-Centred Policies: the Case of Psoriasis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 209-223, February.
    13. 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.
    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. Lidia Engel & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Conceptualising ‘Benefits Beyond Health’ in the Context of the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(12), pages 1383-1395, December.
    2. Kirsten Howard & Glenn Salkeld & Kirsten McCaffery & Les Irwig, 2008. "HPV triage testing or repeat Pap smear for the management of atypical squamous cells (ASCUS) on Pap smear: is there evidence of process utility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 593-605, May.
    3. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    4. Lin Li & J L (Hans) Severens & Olena Mandrik, 2019. "Disutility associated with cancer screening programs: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    7. J. Shannon Swan & William F. Lawrence & Jessica Roy, 2006. "Process Utility in Breast Biopsy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 347-359, July.
    8. Goebbels, Adrienne F.G. & Lakerveld, Jeroen & Ament, André J.H.A. & Bot, Sandra D.M. & Severens, Johan L., 2012. "Exploring non-health outcomes of health promotion: The perspective of participants in a lifestyle behaviour change intervention," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 177-186.
    9. 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.
    10. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Kjær, Trine, 2011. "The influence of information and private versus public provision on preferences for screening for prostate cancer: A willingness-to-pay study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 277-289, August.
    11. Giulia Greco & Paula Lorgelly & Inthira Yamabhai, 2016. "Outcomes in Economic Evaluations of Public Health Interventions in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: Health, Capabilities and Subjective Wellbeing," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 83-94, February.
    12. Sukanya Tianviwat & Virasakdi Chongsuvivatwong & Stephen Birch, 2008. "Different dental care setting: does income matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 109-118, January.
    13. Lamiraud, Karine & von Bremen, Konrade & Donaldson, Cam, 2009. "The impact of information on patient preferences in different delivery patterns: A contingent valuation study of prescription versus OTC drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 102-110, December.
    14. Chris Skedgel & Allan Wailoo & Ron Akehurst, 2015. "Societal Preferences for Distributive Justice in the Allocation of Health Care Resources," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 94-105, January.
    15. Katherine Payne & Marion McAllister & Linda M. Davies, 2013. "Valuing The Economic Benefits Of Complex Interventions: When Maximising Health Is Not Sufficient," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 258-271, March.
    16. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    17. Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Deborah Street & Marion Haas & Denzil Fiebig & Edith Weisberg & Deborah Bateson, 2012. "What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(12), pages 1187-1202, December.
    18. Tappenden, P & Brazier, J & Ratcliffe, J, 2006. "Does the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence take account of factors such as uncertainty and equity as well as incremental cost-effectiveness in commissioning health care services? A," MPRA Paper 29772, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Juan Marcos Gonzalez, 2018. "Evaluating Risk Tolerance from a Systematic Review of Preferences: The Case of Patients with Psoriasis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 285-300, June.
    20. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.

    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:35:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0470-4. 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.