IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v10y2001i1p27-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of scoring weights for the EuroQol© derived from patients and the general public

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Polsky
  • Richard J. Willke
  • Karen Scott
  • Kevin A. Schulman
  • Henry A. Glick

Abstract

Objective: General health state classification systems, such as the EuroQol instrument, have been developed to improve the systematic measurement and comparability of health state preferences. In this paper we generate valuations for EuroQol health states using responses to this instrument's visual analogue scale made by patients enrolled in a randomized clinical trial evaluating tirilazad mesylate, a new drug used to treat subarachnoid haemorrhage. We then compare these valuations derived from patients with published valuations derived from responses made by a sample from the general public. Methods: The data were derived from two sources: (1) responses to the EuroQol instrument from 649 patients 3 months after enrollment in the clinical trial, and (2) from a published study reporting a scoring rule for the EuroQol instrument that was based upon responses made by the general public. We used a linear regression model to develop an additive scoring rule. This rule enables direct valuation of all 243 EuroQol health states using patients' scores for their own health states elicited using a visual analogue scale. We then compared predicted scores generated using our scoring rule with predicted scores derived from a sample from the general public. Results: The predicted scores derived using the additive scoring rules met convergent validity criteria and explained a substantial amount of the variation in visual analogue scale scores (R2=0.57). In the pairwise comparison of the predicted scores derived from the study sample with those derived from the general public, we found that the former set of scores were higher for 223 of the 243 states. Despite the low level of correspondence in the pairwise comparison, the overall correlation between the two sets of scores was 87%. Conclusions: The model presented in this paper demonstrated that scoring weights for the EuroQol instrument can be derived directly from patient responses from a clinical trial and that these weights can explain a substantial amount of variation in health valuations. Scoring weights based on patient responses are significantly higher than those derived from the general public. Further research is required to understand the source of these differences. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Polsky & Richard J. Willke & Karen Scott & Kevin A. Schulman & Henry A. Glick, 2001. "A comparison of scoring weights for the EuroQol© derived from patients and the general public," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 27-37, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:10:y:2001:i:1:p:27-37
    DOI: 10.1002/1099-1050(200101)10:1<27::AID-HEC561>3.0.CO;2-R
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1050(200101)10:13.0.CO;2-R
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/1099-1050(200101)10:1<27::AID-HEC561>3.0.CO;2-R?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henry A. Glick & Daniel Polsky & Richard J. Willke & Kevin A. Schulman, 1999. "A Comparison of Preference Assessment Instruments Used in a Clinical Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(3), pages 265-275, August.
    2. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1979. "Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 810-822, August.
    3. Brooks, Richard G. & Jendteg, Stefan & Lindgren, Bjorn & Persson, Ulf & Bjork, Stefan, 1991. "EuroQol(c): health-related quality of life measurement. Results of the Swedish questionnaire exercise," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 37-48, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eduardo Sánchez‐Iriso & Maria Errea Rodríguez & Juan Manuel Cabasés Hita, 2019. "Valuing health using EQ‐5D: The impact of chronic diseases on the stock of health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(12), pages 1402-1417, December.
    2. Damschroder, Laura J. & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2005. "The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 267-277, July.
    3. Christine McDonough & Anna Tosteson, 2007. "Measuring Preferences for Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 93-106, February.
    4. Julie Sturza, 2010. "A Review and Meta-Analysis of Utility Values for Lung Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 685-693, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Joseph T. King Jr & Joel Tsevat & Mark S. Roberts, 2009. "Impact of the Scale Upper Anchor on Health State Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(2), pages 257-266, March.
    7. Burstrom, Kristina & Johannesson, Magnus & Diderichsen, Finn, 2006. "A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 359-370, May.
    8. Yvette Peeters & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2009. "Valuing Health: Does Enriching a Scenario Lead to Higher Utilities?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 334-342, May.
    9. Darrell J. Gaskin & Kevin D. Frick, 2008. "Race and Ethnic Disparities in Valuing Health," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 12-20, January.

    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. Janne Gustafsson, 2020. "Valuation of Research and Development Projects Using Buying and Selling Prices: Generalized Definitions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 154-168, June.
    2. Peter Reichert & Klemens Niederberger & Peter Rey & Urs Helg & Susanne Haertel-Borer, 2019. "The need for unconventional value aggregation techniques: experiences from eliciting stakeholder preferences in environmental management," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 197-219, November.
    3. Wynn C. Stirling & Teppo Felin, 2016. "Satisficing, preferences, and social interaction: a new perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 279-308, August.
    4. Christophe Labreuche & Michel Grabisch, 2016. "A comparison of the GAI model and the Choquet integral with respect to a k-ary capacity," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01277825, HAL.
    5. Jay Simon, 2016. "On the existence of altruistic value and utility functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 371-391, September.
    6. James E. Smith & James S. Dyer, 2021. "On (Measurable) Multiattribute Value Functions: An Expository Argument," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 247-256, December.
    7. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    8. Philippe Delquié, 2008. "The Value of Information and Intensity of Preference," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 129-139, September.
    9. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller, 2006. "A Multiple-Objective Decision Analysis for Terrorism Protection: Potassium Iodide Distribution in Nuclear Incidents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 76-93, June.
    10. Sriwastava, Ambuj & Reichert, Peter, 2023. "Reducing sample size requirements by extending discrete choice experiments to indifference elicitation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    11. Jin Zhao, 2019. "Information Entropy-Based Housing Spatiotemporal Dependence," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 21-50, January.
    12. Malin Ulfsdotter & Lene Lindberg & Anna Månsdotter, 2015. "A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Swedish Universal Parenting Program All Children in Focus," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Loomes, Graham, 1995. "The myth of the HYE," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 1-7, May.
    14. Minardi, Stefania & Savochkin, Andrei, 2015. "Preferences with grades of indecisiveness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 300-331.
    15. Irina Cleemput, 2010. "A social preference valuations set for EQ-5D health states in Flanders, Belgium," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(2), pages 205-213, April.
    16. Lahdelma, Risto & Makkonen, Simo & Salminen, Pekka, 2009. "Two ways to handle dependent uncertainties in multi-criteria decision problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 79-92, February.
    17. Ralph L. Keeney, 2002. "Common Mistakes in Making Value Trade-Offs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 935-945, December.
    18. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    19. L. Robin Keller & Jay Simon, 2019. "Preference Functions for Spatial Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(1), pages 244-256, January.
    20. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, 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:wly:hlthec:v:10:y:2001:i:1:p:27-37. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.