Current state of the art in preference-based measures of health and avenues for further research

Preference-based measures of health (PBMH) have been developed primarily for use in economic evaluation. They have two components, a standardized, multidimensional system for classifying health states and a set of preference weights or scores that generate a single index score for each health state defined by the classification, where full health is one and zero is equivalent to death. A health state can have a score of less than zero if regarded as worse than being dead. These PMBH can be distinguished from non-preference-based measures by the way the scoring algorithms have been developed, in that they are estimated from the values people place on different aspects of health rather than a simple summative scoring procedure or weights obtained from techniques based on item response patterns (e.g., factor analysis or Rasch analysis). The use of PBMH has grown considerably over the last decade with the increasing use of economic evaluation to inform health policy. Preference-based measures have become a common means of generating health state values for calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The status of PBMH was considerably enhanced by the recommendations of the U.S. Public Health Service Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine to use them in economic evaluation. A key requirement for PBHM in economic evaluation is that they allow comparison across programmes. While PBMH have been developed primarily for use in economic evaluation, they have also been used to measure health in populations. PBHM provide a better means than a profile measure of determining whether there has been an overall improvement in self-perceived health. The preference-based nature of their scoring algorithms also offers an advantage over non-preference-based measures since the overall summary score reflects what is important to the general population. A non-preference-based measure does not provide an indication to policy makers of the overall importance of health differences between groups or of changes over time. The purpose of this paper is to critically review methods of designing preference based measures. The paper begins by reviewing approaches to deriving preference weights for PBMH, and this is followed by a brief description and comparison of five common PBMH. The main part of the paper then critically reviews the core components of these measures, namely the classifications for describing health states, the source of their values, and the methods for estimating the scoring algorithm. The final section proposes future research priorities for this field.

[1]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  RELATIVE RISK AVERSION. , 1982 .

[2]  M. Mcgrath Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. , 1998 .

[3]  R. Kane,et al.  Methodology for measuring health-state preferences--II: Scaling methods. , 1989, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  G. Guyatt Commentary on Jack Dowie, "Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions". , 2002, Health economics.

[5]  Jan Abel Olsen,et al.  The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. , 2002, Social science & medicine.

[6]  T. Mills,et al.  Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires , 2006 .

[7]  N. Ikegami,et al.  Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. , 2002, Health economics.

[8]  N. Boyd,et al.  Whose Utilities for Decision Analysis? , 1990, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[9]  P. Dolan,et al.  Time preference, duration and health state valuations. , 1995, Health economics.

[10]  P. Kind,et al.  A Comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish General Population Time Trade-off Values for EQ-5D Health States , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[11]  A Shiell,et al.  Are preferences over health states complete? , 2000, Health economics.

[12]  J. Brazier,et al.  Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. , 2000, PharmacoEconomics.

[13]  M Johannesson,et al.  The Relationship between Health-state Utilities and the SF-12 in a General Population , 1999, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[14]  M. Boyle,et al.  Multiattribute and Single‐Attribute Utility Functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System , 2002, Medical care.

[15]  Stephen Joel Coons,et al.  US Valuation of the EQ-5D Health States: Development and Testing of the D1 Valuation Model , 2005, Medical care.

[16]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  The Measurement of Patients' Values in Medicine , 1982, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[17]  K C Cain,et al.  Measuring Preferences for Health States Worse than Death , 1994, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[18]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[19]  G. Torrance,et al.  The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. , 1978, Journal of chronic diseases.

[20]  G. Torrance Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. , 1986, Journal of health economics.

[21]  Colin Camerer Individual Decision Making , 2020, The Handbook of Experimental Economics.

[22]  D. Feeny,et al.  Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. , 1996, Medical care.

[23]  L A Lenert,et al.  Associations between health status and utilities implications for policy. , 1999, Medical care.

[24]  A. Oliver The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory. , 2003, Journal of health economics.

[25]  P. Dolan,et al.  To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents? , 2002, Social science & medicine.

[26]  R. Brooks EuroQol: the current state of play. , 1996, Health policy.

[27]  H. Bleichrodt A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. , 2002, Health economics.

[28]  J. Brazier,et al.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[29]  P. Schoemaker The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations , 1982 .

[30]  P. Dolan,et al.  Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. , 1997, Social science & medicine.

[31]  P. Dolan,et al.  Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? , 1997, Social science & medicine.

[32]  M. Drummond,et al.  Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Public Policy@@@Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes , 1988 .

[33]  J. Brazier,et al.  Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. , 2004, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[34]  M Johannesson,et al.  An Experimental Test of a Theoretical Foundation for Rating-scale Valuations , 1997, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[35]  P. Dolan,et al.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. , 1997, Medical care.

[36]  A. O'Hagan,et al.  Estimating population cardinal health state valuation models from individual ordinal (rank) health state preference data , 2004 .

[37]  Ross D Crosby,et al.  Estimating a preference-based single index for the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) instrument from the SF-6D. , 2004, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[38]  N. Boyd,et al.  Attitudes Toward Quality of Survival , 1982, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[39]  J. Richardson,et al.  Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? , 1994, Social science & medicine.

[40]  G Loomes,et al.  Visual Analog Scales, Standard Gambles, and Relative Risk Aversion , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[41]  Imran S. Currim,et al.  A Comparative Evaluation of Multiattribute Consumer Preference Models , 1984 .

[42]  John Bankart,et al.  Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision , 2004, Applied health economics and health policy.

[43]  Kirchberger,et al.  Quality‐of‐life aspects of the overactive bladder and the effect of treatment with tolterodine , 1999, BJU international.

[44]  E. Nord,et al.  The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. , 1991, The International journal of health planning and management.

[45]  Anthony O'Hagan,et al.  Estimating utilities from individual health preference data: a nonparametric Bayesian method , 2005 .

[46]  J. Brazier,et al.  A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. , 1999, Health economics.

[47]  Grazyna Adamiak,et al.  Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed , 2006 .

[48]  Jack Dowie,et al.  Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions. , 2002, Health economics.

[49]  P. Dolan,et al.  Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. , 1996, Journal of health economics.

[50]  N. Sengupta,et al.  Evaluating Quality-Adjusted Life Years , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[51]  Stirling Bryan,et al.  An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. , 2003, Health economics.

[52]  K. Buckingham,et al.  A note on HYE (healthy years equivalent) , 1993, Journal of health economics.

[53]  J. Brazier,et al.  The Estimation of a Preference-Based Measure of Health From the SF-12 , 2004, Medical care.

[54]  David Feeny,et al.  Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation , 1992 .

[55]  J. Brazier,et al.  A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. , 2004, Health economics.

[56]  C. Schwartz,et al.  Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[57]  R M Kaplan,et al.  A general health policy model: update and applications. , 1988, Health services research.

[58]  H. Brown,et al.  Validity of Euroqol--a generic health status instrument--in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Economic and Health Outcomes Research Group. , 1994, British journal of rheumatology.

[59]  Joshua A Salomon,et al.  Reconsidering the use of rankings in the valuation of health states: a model for estimating cardinal values from ordinal data , 2003, Population health metrics.