Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2071-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
To extend existing analyses of whether and how the age of respondents is related to their time trade-off (TTO) valuations of hypothetical EQ-5D-3L health states, and to contribute to the existing debate about the rationale and implications for using age-specific utilities in health technology assessment (HTA).
We use data from the MVH UK valuation study. For each profile, the mean TTO value—adjusted by sex, education, self-reported health and personal experience of serious illness—is pairwise compared across the different age groups. A Bonferroni correction is applied to the multiple testing of significant differences between means. Smile plots illustrate the results. A debate regarding whether there is a case for using age-specific utilities in HTAs complements the analysis.
Results show that the oldest respondents value health profiles lower than younger age groups, particularly for profiles describing problems in the mobility dimension.
The findings raise the possibility of using age-specific value sets in HTAs, since a technology may not be cost-effective on average but cost-effective for a sub-group whose preferences are more closely aligned to the benefits offered by the technology.
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 57 KB)11136_2018_2071_MOESM1_ESM.docx
NICE. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35(11), 1095–1108. CrossRef
Van Nooten, F., & Brouwer, W. (2004). The influence of subjective expectations about length and quality of life on time trade-off answers. Health Economics, 13(8), 819–823. CrossRef
Heintz, E., Krol, M., & Levin, L. (2013). The impact of patients’ subjective life expectancy on time tradeoff valuations. Medical Decision Making, 33(2), 261–270. CrossRef
Robinson, A., Dolan, P., & Williams, A. (1997). Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Social Science & Medicine, 45(8), 1289–1297. CrossRef
Cubi-Molla, P., Shah, K., & Burström, K. (2018). Experience-based values: a framework for classifying different types of experience in health valuation research. The Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 11(3), 253–270. CrossRef
Hofman, C. S., Makai, P., Boter, H., Buurman, B. M., de Craen, A. J., Olde Rikkert, M. G. M., Donders, R., & Melis, R. J. (2015). The influence of age on health valuations: the older olds prefer functional independence while the younger olds prefer less morbidity. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 10, 1131–1139. CrossRef
Essink-Bot, M. L., Stuifbergen, M. C., Meerding, W. J., Looman, C. W., & Bonsel, G. J. (2007). Individual differences in the use of the response scale determine valuations of hypothetical health states: an empirical study. BMC Health Services Research, 7(1), 62. CrossRef
Franks, P., Lubetkin, E. I., & Melnikow, J. (2007). Do personal and societal preferences differ by socio-demographic group? Health Economics, 16(3), 319–325. CrossRef
MVH Group. (1995). The measurement and valuation of health: final report on the modelling of valuation tariffs. New York: Centre for Health Economics.
Dmitrienko, A., Tamhane, A. C., & Bretz, F. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple testing problems in pharmaceutical statistics. New York: CRC Press.
Manning, W. G., & Mullahy, J. (2001). Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? Journal of Health Economics, 20(4), 461–494. CrossRef
Newson, R., & the ALSPAC Study Team (2003). Multiple-test procedures and smile plots. Stata Journal, 3(2), 109–132. CrossRef
Coretti, S., Ruggeri, M., & McNamee, P. (2014). The minimum clinically important difference for EQ-5D index: a critical review. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 14(2), 221–233. CrossRef
Sculpher, M., & Gafni, A. (2001). Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Economics, 10(4), 317–324. CrossRef
Devlin, N., Shah, K. K., & Buckingham, K. (2017). What is the normative basis for selecting the measure of ‘average’ preferences for use in social choices? Research Paper. London: Office of Health Economics.
Robinson, A., & Parkin, D. (2002). Recognising diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. A response to Sculpher and Gafni. Health Economics, 11(7), 649–651. CrossRef
NICE. (2008). Social value judgements: Principles for the development of NICE guidance (Second edn.). London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
- A note on the relationship between age and health-related quality of life assessment
- Springer International Publishing
Quality of Life Research
An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation - Official Journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, digitale Transformation/© Maksym Yemelyanov | Fotolia