Health state utility values of high prevalence mental disorders in Australia: results from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing
High prevalence mental disorders including depression, anxiety and substance use disorders are associated with high economic and disease burden. However, there is little information regarding the health state utility values of such disorders according to their clinical severity using comparable instruments across all disorders. This study reports utility values for high prevalence mental disorders using data from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHWB).
Utility values were derived from the AQoL-4D and analysed by disorder classification (affective only (AD), anxiety-related only (ANX), substance use only (SUB) plus four comorbidity groups), severity level (mild, moderate, severe), symptom recency (reported in the past 30 days), and comorbidity (combination of disorders). The adjusted Wald test was applied to detect statistically significant differences of weighted means and the magnitude of difference between groups was presented as a modified Cohen’s d.
In total, 1526 individuals met criteria for a 12-month mental disorder. The mean utility value was 0.67 (SD = 0.27), with lower utility values associated with higher severity levels and some comorbidities. Utility values for AD, ANX and SUB were 0.64 (SD = 0.25), 0.71 (SD = 0.25) and 0.81 (SD = 0.19), respectively. No differences in utility values were observed between disorders within disorder groups. Utility values were significantly lower among people with recent symptoms (within past 30 days) than those without; when examined by diagnostic group, this pattern held for people with SUB, but not for people with ANX or AD.
Health state utility values of people with high prevalence mental disorders differ significantly by severity level, number of mental health comorbidities and the recency of symptoms, which provide new insights on the burden associated with high prevalence mental disorders in Australia. The derived utility values can be used to populate future economic models.
KeywordsUtilities AQoL-4D Mental health Affective disorder Anxiety Substance use disorder
We thank the Australian Bureau of Statistics for access to the 2007 NSMHWB. The 2007 NSMHWB was funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, and conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
This study was conducted without financial support and the authors report no conflict of interest.
- 1.Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits fo economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 2.NICE. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE.Google Scholar
- 3.Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (2008). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.3). Canberra, ACT: Australian Governmnet - Department of Health and Ageing.Google Scholar
- 18.Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Users’ guide, 2007. Retrieved March 28, 2018 from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4327.0Main%20Features12007.
- 19.Slade, J., Teeson, W., & Burgess, P. (2009). The mental health of Australians 2: Report on the 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Canberra: Department of Health.Google Scholar
- 20.Richardson, J., Hawthorne, G., Day, N. A., Osborne, R., & McNeil, H. (1998). Difficulty with life and death: Methodological issues and results from the utility scaling of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) instrument. Working paper 70. Melbourne, VIC: The Centre for Health Program Evaluation (CHPE), Monash University.Google Scholar
- 22.Rehm, J., Üstün, T. B., Saxena, S., Nelson, C. B., Chatterji, S., Ivis, F., et al. (1999). On the development and psychometric testing of the WHO screening instrument to assess disablement in the general population. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 8, 110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 25.StataCorp. (2013). Stata statistical software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
- 26.Hawthorne, G., & Osborne, R. (2005). Population norms and meaningful differences for the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) measure. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 136–142.Google Scholar
- 33.Mihalopoulos, C., Chen, G., Iezzi, A., Khan, M., & Richardson, J. (2014). Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: Comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. British Journal of Psychiatry, 205, 390–397.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar