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. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1979. "Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 810-822, August.
    2. 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.
    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. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2015. "On the decomposition of Generalized Additive Independence models," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 15064, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    2. Bous, Géraldine & Fortemps, Philippe & Glineur, François & Pirlot, Marc, 2010. "ACUTA: A novel method for eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 435-444, October.
    3. Christophe Labreuche & Michel Grabisch, 2016. "A comparison of the GAI model and the Choquet integral with respect to a k-ary capacity," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 16004, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    4. K S Park & I Jeong, 2011. "How to treat strict preference information in multicriteria decision analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1771-1783, October.
    5. Stirling Bryan & Louise Longworth, 2005. "Measuring health-related utility:," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 253-260, September.
    6. Rivelino R. De Icaza & Gregory S. Parnell & Edward A. Pohl, 2019. "Gulf Coast Port Selection Using Multiple-Objective Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 87-104, June.
    7. Butler, John & Jia, Jianmin & Dyer, James, 1997. "Simulation techniques for the sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 531-546, December.
    8. Melissa Garber & Shahram Sarkani & Thomas Mazzuchi, 2017. "A Framework for Multiobjective Decision Management with Diverse Stakeholders," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 335-356, July.
    9. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov, 1996. "The economics of ageing: on the attitude of Swedish people to the distribution of health care resources between the young and the old," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 153-161, September.
    10. Nikolaos Argyris & Alec Morton & José Rui Figueira, 2014. "CUT: A Multicriteria Approach for Concavifiable Preferences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 633-642, June.
    11. Carland, Corinne & Goentzel, Jarrod & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2018. "Modeling the values of private sector agents in multi-echelon humanitarian supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 532-543.
    12. Raisa B. Deber & Vivek Goel, 1990. "Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(3), pages 181-194, August.
    13. Aksoy, Yasemin & Butler, Timothy W. & Minor, Elliott D., 1996. "Comparative studies in interactive multiple objective mathematical programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 408-422, March.
    14. Seidl, C. & Traub, S., 1996. "Testing Decision Rules for Multiattribute Decision Making," Other publications TiSEM 06d7c897-6596-4359-80f8-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Labreuche, Christophe & Grabisch, Michel, 2018. "Using multiple reference levels in Multi-Criteria Decision aid: The Generalized-Additive Independence model and the Choquet integral approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(2), pages 598-611.
    16. Jay Simon, 2009. "Decision Making with Prostate Cancer: A Multiple-Objective Model with Uncertainty," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 218-227, June.
    17. Ríos Insua, David & Cano, Javier & Pellot, Michael & Ortega, Ricardo, 2016. "Multithreat multisite protection: A security case study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(3), pages 888-899.
    18. Ali E. Abbas & Zhengwei Sun, 2015. "Multiattribute Utility Functions Satisfying Mutual Preferential Independence," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(2), pages 378-393, April.
    19. Salvatore Corrente & José Figueira & Salvatore Greco, 2014. "Dealing with interaction between bipolar multiple criteria preferences in PROMETHEE methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 217(1), pages 137-164, June.
    20. Junyi Chai, 2023. "A Behavioral Foundation of Satiation and Habituation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, January.

    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.