Abstract
Whether health values should be elicited from the perspective of patients or the general public is still an open debate. The overall aim of this paper is to increase knowledge on the role of experience in health preference-based valuation research. The objectives of this paper are threefold. First, we elaborate the idea of experience-based (EB) values under the informed value or knowledge viewpoint. We think the whole scope of knowledge about the health states involved in valuation exercises is not fully integrated in the previous literature. For instance, personal knowledge based on past experiences, contemplating the health state as a likely future condition, knowing someone who is currently experiencing the state, or just receiving detailed information about the health states; all these situations capture different nuances of health-related experience which are not explicitly referred to in valuation tasks. Second, we propose a framework where the extended factor of experience is detached from other factors interwoven into the valuation exercise. Third, we examine how experience is tackled in different value sets (EB or non-EB) identified via a literature review. We identified the following elements (and items) in a value set: health state (without description, described using a multi-attribute instrument, described using other method), reference person (the respondent; other person, similar/known/hypothetical), time frame (past, present, future), raters (public, representative/convenience; vested interest, patients/other) and experience (personal experience, past/present/future; vicarious experience, affective/non-affective; no experience). Forty-nine valuation exercises were extracted from 22 reviewed papers and classified following our suggested set of elements and items. The results show that the role of experience reported in health valuation-related papers is frequently disregarded or, at most, minimised to the item of personal experience (present)—linked to self-reported health.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Note that Leidl and Reitmeir [36] show the results from an EB valuation developed in Germany; however, the outcomes of that study were individual visual analogue scale scores, with no anchoring to make the scores amenable to the estimation of QALYs. This implies that the scores in Leidl and Reitmeir’s value set should not be interpreted as quality weights for the computation of QALYs without further analysis.
Note that EB value sets can also collect preference-based measurements, and can therefore be entered as utilities for QALY computations. We thus question the classification suggested in Leidl and Reitmeir [35] of value sets as either EB value sets or utility-based value sets.
Italic added for emphasis (not in original).
A modification of the TTO introduces a lead time of perfect health before the health state to be valued. The lead time approach is currently used for the valuation of health states considered worse than dead in the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol [51, 53]. The lead time implicitly delays the impaired health state to the future, so we could think that the new time frame is future. However, the construction of the lead time assumes an initial period of perfect health, what may not be the current health state of the respondent; thus the method is not postponing the start of the hypothetical scenario to be valued. Thus we will contemplate the lead time as part of the health state to be valued. This way the lead time TTO method will also be attached to a present to future time frame, as per the standard TTO. The implications of adding lead time to the health state valuation are beyond the scope of this paper.
Note that the items can be interpreted in an affirmative or negative way. That is, when asking respondents to imagine that they will/won’t get the illness in the future, both questions address the same item personal experience, future.
Adjusted for age, sex, education, social class and difficulty with rating task.
References
Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J. 2008;118(525):215–34.
Ubel P, Lowenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:599–607.
De Wit GA, Busschbach JJ, De Charro FT. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ. 2000;9(2):109–26.
Menzel P, Dolan P, Richardson J, Olsen JA. The role of adaptation to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(12):2149–58.
Versteegh M, Brouwer W. Patient and general public preferences for health states: a call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc Sci Med. 2016;165:66–74.
Oldridge N, Furlong W, Perkins A, Feeny D, Torrance GW. Community or patient preferences for cost-effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation: does it matter? Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008;15(5):608–15.
Borkman T. Experiential knowledge: a new concept for the analysis of self-help groups. Soc Serv Rev. 1976;50(3):445–56.
Abel EK, Browner CH. Selective compliance with biomedical authority and the uses of experiential knowledge. In: Lock M, Kaufert P, editors. Pragmatic women and body politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
Brazier J, Rowen D, Karimi M, Peasgood T, Tsuchiya A, Ratcliffe J. Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it. Eur J Health Econ. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-017-0931-5.
Dolan P, Olsen J, Menzel P, Richardson J. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ. 2003;12(7):545–51.
Tsuchiya A, Watson V. Re-thinking ‘the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Econ. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3480.
Leidl R, Schweikert B, Hahmann H, Steinacker JM, Reitmeir P. Assessing quality of life in a clinical study on heart rehabilitation patients: how well do value sets based on given or experienced health states reflect patients’ valuations? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):48.
Burström K, Sun S, Gerdtham UG, Henriksson M, Johannesson M, Levin LA, et al. Swedish experience-based value sets for EQ-5D health states. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):431–42.
Tosh J, Brazier J, Evans P, Longworth L. A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. 2012;15(1):118–27.
Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96(1):5–21.
Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Dolan P, Claxton K. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201–8.
Insinga RP, Fryback DG. Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(6):611–9.
Peeters Y, Stiggelbout AM. Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health. 2010;13(2):306–9.
Aronsson M, Husberg M, Kalkan A, Eckard N, Alwin J. Differences between hypothetical and experience-based value sets for EQ-5D used in Sweden: implications for decision makers. Scand J Public Health. 2015;43(8):848–54.
Little MH, Reitmeir P, Peters A, Leidl R. The impact of differences between patient and general population EQ-5D-3L values on the mean tariff scores of different patient groups. Value Health. 2014;17(4):364–71.
Mulhern B, Bansback N, Brazier J, Buckingham K, Cairns J, Dolan N, et al. Preparatory study for the revaluation of the EQ-5D tariff: methodology report. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(12):1–191.
McNamee P. What difference does it make? The calculation of QALY gains from health profiles using patient and general population values. Health Policy. 2007;84(2):321–31.
Maor Y, King M, Olmer L, Mozes B. A comparison of three measures: the time trade-off technique, global health-related quality of life and the SF-36 in dialysis patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(6):565–70.
Zethraeus N, Johannesson M. A comparison of patient and social tariff values derived from the time trade-off method. Health Econ. 1999;8(6):541–5.
Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A. Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(8):1289–97.
Dolan P. Developing methods that really do value the ‘Q’in the QALY. Health Econ Policy Law. 2008;3(01):69–77.
NICE. Guide to the methods of health technology appraisal London: NICE; 2013.
Burström K, Johannesson M, Diderichsen F. A comparison of individual and social time trade-off values for health states in the general population. Health Policy. 2006;76(3):359–70.
Boardman F. Knowledge is Power? The role of experiential knowledge in genetically ‘risky’ reproductive decisions. Sociol Health Illn. 2014;36(1):137–50.
McTaggart-Cowan H, Tsuchiya A, O’Cathain A, Brazier J. Understanding the effect of disease adaptation information on general population values for hypothetical health states. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(11):1904–12.
Boye KS, Matza LS, Feeny DH, Johnston JA, Bowman L, Jordan JB. Challenges to time trade-off utility assessment methods: when should you consider alternative approaches? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(3):437–50.
Dolan P. Modelling valuations for health states: the effect of duration. Health Policy. 1996;38:189–203.
Urdang L, editor. The Oxford thesaurus: an AZ dictionary of synonyms. BCA/Oxford University Press; Reprint edition 1993.
Bulme S. In search of experiential knowledge. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res. 2017;30(1):91–103.
Leidl R, Reitmeir P. An experience-based value set for the EQ-5D-5L in Germany. Value Health. 2017;20(8):1150–6.
Leidl R, Reitmeir P. A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(6):521–34.
Sun S, Chen J, Kind P, Xu L, Zhang Y, Burström K. Experience-based VAS values for EQ-5D-3L health states in a national general population health survey in China. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(3):693–703.
Boardman FK. Experience as knowledge: disability, distillation and (reprogenetic) decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 2017;191:186–93.
Attema A, Versteegh M, Oppe M, Brouwer W, Stolk E. Lead time TTO: leading to better health state valuations? Health Econ. 2013;22(4):376–92.
Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, Kind P. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D Health states. Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(1):7–16.
Björk S, Norinder A. The weighting exercise for the Swedish version of the EuroQol. Health Econ. 1999;8(2):117–26.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.
Dolan P. Thinking about it: thoughts about health and valuing QALYs. Health Econ. 2011;20(12):1407–16.
Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJV, Graf van der Schulenburg JM. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade-off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6(2):124–30.
Hofman C, Makai P, Boter H, Buurman B, de Craen A, Rikkert G, et al. The influence of age on health valuations: the older olds prefer functional independence while the younger olds prefer less morbidity. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10:1131–9.
Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, Busschbach JJ. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15(10):1121–32.
Tongsiri S, Cairns J. Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1142–5.
van Nooten FE, Koolman X, Brouwer WBF. The influence of subjective life expectancy on health state valuations using a 10 year TTO. Health Econ. 2009;18(5):549–58.
Wittrup-Jensen KU, Lauridsen J, Gudex C, Pedersen KM. Generation of a Danish TTO value set for EQ-5D health states. Scand J Soc Med. 2009;37(5):459–66.
Zarate V, Kind P, Chuang LH. Hispanic valuation of the EQ-5D health states: a social value set for Latin Americans. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1170–7.
Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004.
Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol. 1984;39(4):341–50.
Oppe M, Devlin N, van Hout B, Krabbe PFM, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–53.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the feedback received on previous drafts from Nancy Devlin, Mike Herdman, Aki Tsuchiya, Mimmi Åström and three referees. Feedback from participants at the PROMs conference (Sheffield, Oxford) and the EuroQol Plenary meeting is also acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
PCM conceived and designed the study, with assistance from KS. PCM conducted the literature review. PCM led the data analysis and interpretation, with assistance from KS and KB. PCM led the drafting of the article, with assistance from KS. PCM, KS and KB all revised the article and approved the final version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
The project is partially funded by the EuroQol Research Foundation (EQ project 2016460). The views expressed by the authors in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the EuroQol Group.
Conflict of interest
PCM and KS are employees of the Office of Health Economics, a registered charity, which receives funding from a variety of sources, including the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. KB and KS are members of the EuroQol group, the developer of the EQ-5D instrument.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cubi-Molla, P., Shah, K. & Burström, K. Experience-Based Values: A Framework for Classifying Different Types of Experience in Health Valuation Research. Patient 11, 253–270 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0292-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0292-2