The precision of health state valuation by members of the general public using the standard gamble
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Precision is a recognised requirement of patient-reported outcome measures but no previous studies of the precision of methods for obtaining health state values from the general public, based on specific health state descriptions or vignettes, have been carried out. The methodological requirements of policy makers internationally is driving growth in the use of methods to obtain utilities from the general public to inform cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) analyses of health technologies being considered for adoption by health systems.
The precision of five comparisons of the outcomes of treatments, based on health state descriptions, was assessed against the results of clinical trials which showed a statistically and clinically significant improvement using an internet panel of members of the UK general public. Health states were developed to depict the baseline and post-treatment states from these exemplar clinical trials. Preferences for health states were obtained using bottom-up titrated standard gamble over the internet, and differences between summary health state values corresponding to the treatment and comparator groups within each exemplar study were compared. Results are considered in the context of various estimates for the minimally important difference in utility values.
Participation among members of the internet panel in the five exemplars ranged from 27 to 59. In four of the five exemplars, the utility-based estimates of treatment benefit showed significant differences between groups and were greater than an assumed minimally important difference of 0.1. Mean utility differences between groups were: 0.23 (computerised cognitive behavioural therapy for depression, P < 0.001), 0.11 (hip resurfacing for hip osteoarthritis, P < 0.001), 0.0005 (cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia, P = 0.98), 0.15 (pulmonary rehabilitation for COPD, P < 0.001) and 0.11 (infliximab for Crohn’s disease, P < 0.001). The confidence intervals around the estimates of utility-based treatment effect in three of the five examples did not exclude the possibility of a difference smaller than a minimally important difference of 0.1. Recent empirical evidence suggests a lower minimally important difference (0.03) may be more appropriate, in which case our results provide further reassurance of preservation of precision in health state description and valuation.
The precision of estimates of treatment effects based on preference data obtained from disease-specific measurements in clinically significant studies of health technologies was acceptable using an internet-based panel of members of the general public and the standard gamble. Definition of the minimally important difference in utility estimates is required to adequately assess precision and should be the subject of further research.
- Fitzpatrick, R., Davey, C., Buxton, M., & Jones, D. (1998). Evaluating patient based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment, 2(14), i–iv.
- Kessler, R. C., & Mroczek, D. K. (1995). Measuring the effects of medical interventions. Medical Care, 33, AS109–AS119.
- Stewart, A. L. (1992). Conceptual and methodologic issues in defining quality of life: State of the art. Progress in Cardiovascular Nursing, 7, 3–11.
- Testa, M. A., & Simonson, D. C. (1996). Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. The New England Journal of Medicine, 334, 835–840. doi:10.1056/NEJM199603283341306. CrossRef
- Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108. doi:10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. CrossRef
- McCabe, C., Stevens, K., & Brazier, J. (2005). Utility scores for the HUI2: An empirical comparison of alternative mapping functions. Medical Care, 43, 627–635. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000163666.00471.8e. CrossRef
- Stein, K., Dyer, M., Crabb, T., Milne, R., Round, A., Ratcliffe, J., & Brazier, J. (2006). An internet “value of health” panel: Recruitment, participation and compliance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 90.
- Lenert, L. A., Cher, D. J., Goldstein, M. K., Bergen, M. R., & Garber, A. (1998). The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Medical Decision Making, 18, 76–83. doi:10.1177/0272989X9801800115. CrossRef
- Dolan, P., Gudex, C., Kind, P., & Williams, A. (1996). Valuing health states: A comparison of methods. Journal of Health Economics, 15, 209–231. doi:10.1016/0167-6296(95)00038-0. CrossRef
- Dolan, P., & Sutton, M. (1997). Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Social Science and Medicine, 44, 1519–1530. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00271-7. CrossRef
- Hammerschmidt, T., Zeitler, H.-P., Gulich, M., & Leidl, R. (2004). A comparison of different strategies to collect standard gamble utilities. Medical Decision Making, 24, 493–503. doi:10.1177/0272989X04269239. CrossRef
- Brazier, J., & Dolan, P. (2005). Evidence of preference construction in a comparison of variants of the standard gamble method. Health Economics and Decision Science Section Discussion Papers, University of Sheffield.
- Lenert, L. A., & Sturley, A. E. (2002). Use of the internet to study the utility values of the public. In AMIA annual symposium proceedings (pp. 440–444).
- Selmi, P. M., Klein, M. H., Greist, J. H., Sorrell, S. P., & Erdman, H. P. (1990). Computer-administered cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 51–56.
- Beck, A. T., Rial, W. Y., & Rickels, K. (1974). Short form of depression inventory: Cross-validation. Psychological Reports, 34, 1184–1186.
- McMinn, D., Treacy, R., Lin, K., & Pynsent, P. (1996). Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 329, 89S–98S. doi:10.1097/00003086-199608001-00009. CrossRef
- Vale, L., Wyness, L., McCormack, K., McKenzie, L., Brazelli, M., & Stearns, S. (2001). Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of metal on metal hip resurfacing for treatment of hip disease. Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen.
- Morgan, K., Dixon, S., Mathers, N., Thompson, J., & Tomeny, M. (2004). Psychological treatment for insomnia in the regulation of long-term hypnotic drug use. Health Technology Assessment, 8, 1–94.
- Buysse, B. J., Reynolds, C. F., Monk, T. H., Berman, S. R., & Kupfer, D. J. (1989). The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Research, 28, 193–213. doi:10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4. CrossRef
- Man, W. D., Polkey, M. I., Donaldson, N., Gray, B. J., & Moxham, J. (2004). Community pulmonary rehabilitation after hospitalisation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Randomised controlled study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 329, 1209. doi:10.1136/bmj.38258.662720.3A. CrossRef
- Lacasse, Y., Wong, E., & Guyatt, G. (1974). A systematic overview of the measurement properties of the chronic respiratory questionnaire. Canadian Respiratory Journal, 4, 131–139.
- Guyatt, G., Mitchell, A., Irvine, E. J., Singer, J., Williams, N., Goodacre, R., et al. (1989). A new measure of health status for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology, 96, 804–810.
- Hanauer, S. B., Feagan, B. G., Lichtenstein, G. R., Mayer, L. F., Schreiber, S., Colombel, J. F., et al. (2002). Maintenance infliximab for Crohn’s disease: The ACCENT I randomised trial. Lancet, 359, 1541–1549. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08512-4. CrossRef
- Stein, K., & Milne, R. (1998). Health technology assessment. In M. Baker & S. Kirk (Eds.), Research and development in the NHS. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical.
- Williams, A. (1995). The measurement and valuation of health: A chronicle. University of York, York.
- Garside, R., Stein, K., Castelnuovo, E., Pitt, M., Aschcroft, D., Dimmock, P., et al. (2005). The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus for atopic eczema: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 9, 1–264.
- Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G., Willan, A., & Griffith, L. (1994). Determining the minimal clinically important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 81–87. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1. CrossRef
- Barrett, B., Brown, D., Mundt, M., & Brown, R. (2005). Sufficiently important difference: Expanding the framework of clinical significance. Medical Decision Making, 25, 250–261. doi:10.1177/0272989X05276863. CrossRef
- Brozek, J., Guyatt, G. H., & Schunemann, H. (2006). How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 69.
- Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 292. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8. CrossRef
- Kulkarni, A. V. (2006). Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 176–184. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.011. CrossRef
- The precision of health state valuation by members of the general public using the standard gamble
Quality of Life Research
Volume 18, Issue 4 , pp 509-518
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
- 2. University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- 3. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK