How Well Do the Generic Multi-attribute Utility Instruments Incorporate Patient and Public Views Into Their Descriptive Systems?
- 133 Downloads
Multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are increasingly being used to generate utility data, which can be used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). These QALY data can then be incorporated into a cost–utility analysis as part of an economic evaluation, to inform health care resource allocation decisions. Many health care decision-making bodies around the world, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, require the use of generic MAUIs. Recently, there has been a call for greater input of patients into the development of patient-reported outcome measures, and this is now actively encouraged. By incorporating the views of patients, greater validity of an instrument is expected and it is more likely that patients will be able to self-complete the instrument, which is the ideal when obtaining information about a patient’s health-related quality of life. This paper examines the stages of MAUI development and the scope for patient and/or public involvement at each stage. The paper then reviews how much the main generic MAUIs have incorporated the views of patients/the public into the development of their descriptive systems at each of these stages, and the implications of this. The review finds that the majority of MAUIs had very little input from patients/the public. Instead, existing literature and/or the views of experts were used. If we wish to incorporate patient/public views into future development of MAUIs, qualitative methods are recommended.
KeywordsDescriptive System Public Involvement Preference Weight Carer Experience Scale Generic MAUIs
Funding and conflict of interest
There was no funding source for this paper. The author is the developer of the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D), which is discussed in this paper.
- 1.Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Introduction to the measurement and valuation of health. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 7–33.Google Scholar
- 2.EuroQol. http://www.euroqol.org/. Accessed 23 Sept 2014.
- 4.Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Modelling health state valuation data. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 139–56.Google Scholar
- 5.Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Describing health. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 55–76.Google Scholar
- 6.Brazier JE, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Yang Y, Barkham M, Ibbotson R. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(32):1–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf. Accessed 23 Sept 2014.
- 8.Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Valuing health. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 5. Oxford: University Press; 2007. p. 83–117.Google Scholar
- 9.McColl E. Developing questionnaires. In: Fayers P, Hays R, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 9–23.Google Scholar
- 10.Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2014.
- 11.Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy N, Martin ML, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14:967–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. The Nottingham Health Profile user’s manual. Manchester: Galen Research and Consultancy; 1981.Google Scholar
- 16.Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E. Review and critique of health related multi attribute utility instruments. CHE Research Paper Series. Melbourne: Monash University; 2011; 64.Google Scholar
- 17.Moodie M, Richardson J, Rankin B, Sinha K, Lezzi A. Predicting time trade-off health state valuations of adolescents in four Pacific countries using the AQoL-6D instrument. CHE Research Paper Series. Melbourne: Monash University; 2009; 43.Google Scholar
- 19.Gudex C. The descriptive system of the EuroQol instrument. In: Kind P, Brooks R, Rabin R, editors. EQ-5D concepts and methods: a developmental history. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005.Google Scholar
- 21.Gudex C. Are we lacking a dimension of energy in the EuroQol instrument? In: Bjork S, editor. EuroQol conference proceedings, Lund, October 1991. IHE Working Paper 92:2. Lund: Swedish Institute for Health Economics; 1992. pp. 61–72.Google Scholar
- 24.van Reenen M, Janssen B, Oppe M, Kreimeier S, Greiner W. EQ-5D-Y user guide. http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/publications/user-guide.html. Accessed 12 Nov 2014.
- 27.Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Hernandez M, Mukuria C, Rowen D, Tosh J, Tsuchiya A, Evans P, Keetharuth A, Brazier J. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Methods for obtaining health state values: generic preference-based measures of health and the alternatives. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 175–239.Google Scholar
- 29.QualityMetric Incorporated. SF tools. http://www.sf-36.org/tools/SF36.shtml#VERS2. Accessed 13 Mar 2008.
- 31.Ware JE, Kolinski M, Keller SD. How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summaries: a user’s manual. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre; 1995.Google Scholar
- 33.Cadman D, Goldsmith C, Torrance GW, et al. Development of a health status index for Ontario children. Hamilton: McMaster University; 1986.Google Scholar
- 34.McCabe C. Estimating preference weights for a paediatric health state classification (HUI2) and a comparison of methods. PhD thesis. Sheffield: The University of Sheffield; May 2003.Google Scholar
- 35.Sintonen H, Pekurinen M. A generic 15 dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D). J Soc Med. 1989;26:85–96.Google Scholar
- 36.Sintonen H. The 15-D measure of health related quality of life: reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. Centre for Health Programme Evaluation: Working Paper 41. Melbourne: Monash University; 1994.Google Scholar
- 38.Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. The Quality of Well-Being scale: rationale for a single quality of life index. In: Walker SR, Rosse RM, editors. Quality of life: assessment and application. London: MTP Press; 1988. p. 51–77.Google Scholar
- 44.UK Department of Health. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_117353. Accessed 24 Sept 2014.