Skip to main content
Log in

Economic methods for measuring the quality of life associated with HIV infection

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Quality of life is measured as utilities for cost-effectiveness analyses. Objective: To test the adequacy of three common utility elicitation methods for individuals with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) disease. Measurements: HIV-positive participants (n = 75) rated three standardized health states (symptomatic HIV infection, minor AIDS defining illness, and major AIDS defining illness) with two utility elicitation methods (Standard Gamble [SG], and Time Trade-off [TTO]) and one value method (Visual Analog [VA]). Participants also rated their own health with one utility method (Health Utilities Index [HUI]) and one conventional quality of life method (Medical Outcomes Study–HIV Health Survey [MOS-HIV]). Results: For all states, SG and TTO scores ranged from near 0.00 (equivalent to death) to 1.00 (best possible quality of life). Mean scores for symptomatic HIV were similar with the SG (0.80) and TTO (0.81) but higher than with the VA (0.70). Similar results were observed for minor AIDS defining illnesses (0.65, 0.65, 0.46 respectively) and major AIDS defining illnesses (0.42, 0.44, 0.25 respectively). Discrepant SG and TTO scores were observed in many individuals and were not explained by demographic characteristics. As expected, HUI scores of an individual's own health were related to the disease state. Four of ten MOS-HIV subscales (overall health, physical functioning, role functioning, and pain) were also related to disease state. HUI scores were correlated with the MOS-HIV score for overall health and for all MOS-HIV subscales except health transition. Conclusions: Mean utility scores for HIV-related health states elicited by the Standard Gamble and Time Trade-off were similar but a large degree of individual variation persists. Economic methods provide imprecise estimates of the quality of life associated with HIV infection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gold MR, Se igel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (eds). Cost-e.ectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Detsky AS, Naglie IG. A clinician's guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Int Med 1990;113: 147–154.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rose DN, Sacks HS. Cost-e.ectiveness of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease prevention in patients with AIDS: oral ganciclovir and CMV polymerase chain reaction testing. AIDS 1997; 11: 883–887.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gulick RM. Current antiretroviral therapy: an overview. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 471–474.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wu AW, Lamping DL. Assessment of quality of life in HIV disease. AIDS 1994; 8: S349-S359.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Shumaker SA, Ellis S, Naughton M. Assessing healthrelated quality of life in HIV disease: key measurement issues. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 475–480.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tsevat J, Dawson NV, Matchar DB. Assessing quality of life and preferences in the seriously ill using utility theory. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43(Suppl): 73S-77S.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring healthrelated quality of life. J Chron Dis 1987; 6: 593–600.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 1989; 5: 559–575.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences I: measurement strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 345–354.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences II: scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 459–471.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34: 559–569.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lamping DL. Methods for measuring outcomes to evaluate interventions to improve health-related quality of life in HIV infection. Psychology and Health. 1994; 9: 31–49.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Copfer AE, Ampel NM, Hughes TE, et al. The use of two measures of health-related quality of life in HIVinfected individuals: a cross-sectional comparison. Qual Life Res 1996; 5: 281–286.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tsevat J, Solzan JG, Kuntz KM, Ragland J, Currier JC, Sell RL, Weinstein MC. Health values of patients infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus: relationship to mental health and physical functioning. Med Care 1996; 34: 44–57.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Revicki DA, Wu AW, Murray MI. Change in clinical status, health status, and health utility outcomes in HIV-infected patients. Med Care 1995; 33(Suppl): AS173-AS182.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Owens DK, Cardinalli AB, Nease RF. Physicians assessments of the utility of health states associated with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) infection. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 77–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Holtgrave DR, Pinkerton SD. Updates of cost of illness and quality of life estimates for use in economic evaluations of HIV prevention programs. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1997; 16: 54–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bult JR, Hunink MGM, Tsevat J, Weinstein MC. Heterogeneity in the relationship between the Time Tradeo. and Short Form-36 for HIV-infected and primary care patients. Med Care 1998; 36: 523–532.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu AW, Revicki DA, Jacobson D, Malitz FE. Evidence for reliability, validity and usefulness of the Medical Outcomes Study HIV health survey (MOSHIV). Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 481–493.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mocroft AJ, Johnson MA, Sabin CA, et al. Staging system for clinical AIDS patients. Lancet 1995; 346: 12–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Turner BJ, Markson LE, McKee L, Houchens R, Fanning T. The AIDS-defining diagnosis and subsequent complications: a survival-based severity index. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1991; 4: 1059–1071.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. A clinician's guide to utility analysis. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 1995; 14: 82–90.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bayoumi AM, Redelmeier DA. Preventing Mycobacterium avium complex in patients who are using protease inhibitors: a cost-e.ectiveness analysis. AIDS 1998; 12: 1503–1512.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Planning Sci 1976; 10: 129–136.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211: 453–458.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences III: population and context e.ects. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 585–592.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hershey JC, Kunreuther HC, Schoemaker PJH. Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Sci.1982; 28: 936–955.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med 1982; 306: 1259–1262.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gerard K, Dobson M, Hall J. Framing and labelling e.ects in health descriptions: quality adjusted life years for treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 77–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multiattribute preference functions: Health utilities index. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7: 503–520.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: health utilities index. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7: 490–502.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wu AW, Rubin HR, Mathews WC, et al. A health status questionnaire using 30 items from the Medial Outcomes Study: preliminary validation in persons with early HIV infection. Med Care 1991; 29: 786–798.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 1996; 34: 702–722.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wu AW, Mathews WC, Brysk LT, et al. Quality of life in a placebo-controlled trial of zidovudine in patients with AIDS and AIDS-related complex. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1990; 3: 683–690.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Fleiss JL. tStatistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Identifying and valuing health outcomes. In: Gold MR, Seigel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (eds). Cost-e.ectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996: 82–134.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cunningham WE, Bozzette SA, Hays RD, Kanouse DE, Shapiro MF. Comparison of health-related quality of life in clinical trial and nonclincal trial human-immunodeficiency virus-infected cohorts. Med Care 1995; 33: AS15-AS25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till JE, Boyd NF. Describing health states: methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care 1984; 22: 542–552.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes: Comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 1991; 14: 82–90.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ 1996; 15: 209–231.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievitt J, Leer JWH, Stoter G, DeHaes JCJM. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeo. scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 82–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent e.ect on a cost-e.ectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 505–512.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bombardier C, Wolfson AD, Sinclair AJ, McGeer A. Comparison of three preference measurement methodologies in the evaluation of a function status index. In: Deber RB, Thompson CG (eds). Choices in health care: decision-making and evaluation of e.ectiveness. Toronto; 1982: 145–159.

  46. Fowler FJ, Cleary PD, Massagli MP, Weissman J, Epstein A. The role of reluctance to give up life in the measurement of values of health states. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 95–200.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Owens DK, Nease RF. Occupational exposure to human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus: a comparative analysis of risk. Am J Med 1992; 92: 503–512.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bayoumi, A.M., Redelmeier, D.A. Economic methods for measuring the quality of life associated with HIV infection. Qual Life Res 8, 471–480 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008969512182

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008969512182

Navigation