Utility Decrements Associated with Adult Overweight and Obesity in Australia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Objective

The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of health state utility decrements associated with overweight and obesity in adults 18 years and over, for use in modelled economic evaluations in Australia.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted in nine databases to identify studies that reported health state utility values by weight status. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to synthesise average utility decrements (from healthy weight) associated with overweight, all obesity and obesity classes 1, 2 and 3. Heterogeneity surrounding utility decrements was assessed via sub-group analysis, random-effects meta-regression and sensitivity analyses.

Results

Twelve studies were found for which data were used to synthesise utility decrements, estimated as overweight = 0.020 (95% confidence interval 0.010–0.030), all obesity = 0.055 (0.034–0.076), obesity class 1 = 0.047 (0.017–0.077), class 2 = 0.072 (0.028–0.116) and class 3 = 0.084 (0.039–0.130). There was considerable heterogeneity in our results, which could be accounted for by the different ages and utility instruments used in the contributing studies.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate that elevated weight status is associated with small but statistically significant reductions in utility compared with healthy weight, which will result in reduced quality-adjusted life years when extrapolated across time and used in economic evaluations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. 1.

    WHO. Obesity and overweight [Internet]. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight. Accessed 8 Jul 2020

  2. 2.

    Health Effects of Overweight and Obesity in 195 Countries over 25 Years. N Engl J Med. 2017 377(1):13–27.

  3. 3.

    World Health Organization, Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity. Report of the Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity. 2016.

  4. 4.

    Stanaway JD, Afshin A, Gakidou E, Lim SS, Abate D, Abate KH, et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1923–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Brazier J, Ara R, Azzabi I, Busschbach J, Chevrou-Séverac H, Crawford B, et al. Identification, review, and use of health state utilities in cost-effectiveness models: an ISPOR good practices for outcomes research task force report. Value Health. 2019;22(3):267–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Brown V, Tan EJ, Hayes AJ, Petrou S, Moodie ML. Utility values for childhood obesity interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for use in economic evaluation. Obes Rev. 2018;19(7):905–16.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Doyle S, Lloyd A, Moore L, Ray J, Gray A. A systematic review and critical assessment of health state utilities: weight change and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. PharmacoEconomics. 2012;30(12):1133–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Dennett SL, Boye KS, Yurgin NR. The impact of body weight on patient utilities with or without type 2 diabetes: a review of the medical literature. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;11(3):478–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Covidence - Better systematic review management [Internet]. https://www.covidence.org/home. Accessed 18 Jun 2020.

  12. 12.

    Petrou S, Kwon J, Madan J. A practical guide to conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of health state utility values. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(9):1043–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    EQ-5D [Internet]. https://euroqol.org/. Accessed 22 Jun 2020

  14. 14.

    Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    AQoL [Internet]. https://www.aqol.com.au/. Accessed 22 Jun 2020

  17. 17.

    Time Trade-Off [Internet]. YHEC - York Health Economics Consortium. https://yhec.co.uk/glossary/time-trade-off/. Accessed 22 Jun 2020

  18. 18.

    Standard Gamble [Internet]. YHEC - York Health Economics Consortium. https://yhec.co.uk/glossary/standard-gamble/. Accessed 22 Jun 2020

  19. 19.

    Mahlich J, Dilokthornsakul P, Sruamsiri R, Chaiyakunapruk N. Cultural beliefs, utility values, and health technology assessment. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018;16(1):19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Roudijk B, Donders ART, Stalmeier PFM. Cultural values: can they explain differences in health utilities between Countries? Med Decis Making. 2019;39(5):605–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Etienne A, Jacques P, Joël C. Gender-Related Differential Effects of Obesity on Health-Related Quality of Life via Obesity-Related Comorbidities. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016;9(3):246–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Defining Adult Overweight and Obesity | Overweight & Obesity | CDC [Internet]. 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/defining.html Accessed 16 Jun 2020

  23. 23.

    7.7.2 Standard errors from confidence intervals and P values: difference measures [Internet]. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_7/7_7_7_2_obtaining_standard_errors_from_confidence_intervals_and.htm. Accessed 4 May 2020

  24. 24.

    Sampling Distribution of Difference Between Means [Internet]. http://onlinestatbook.com/2/sampling_distributions/samplingdist_diff_means.html. Accessed 4 May 2020

  25. 25.

    Cooper N, Coyle D, Abrams K, Mugford M, Sutton A. Use of evidence in decision models: an appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK since 1997. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(4):245–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Stata: Software for Statistics and Data Science [Internet]. https://www.stata.com/. Accessed 22 Jun 2020.

  27. 27.

    IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA. Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(8):2045–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    6.2 What are subgroup analyses? [Internet]. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_9/9_6_2_what_are_subgroup_analyses.htm. Accessed 7 Jul 2020.

  30. 30.

    6.4 Meta-regression [Internet]. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_9/9_6_4_meta_regression.htm. Accessed 1 Jul 2020.

  31. 31.

    Jayasinghe UW, Harris MF, Taggart J, Christl B, Black DA. Gender differences in health-related quality of life of Australian chronically-ill adults: patient and physician characteristics do matter. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Hajian-Tilaki K, Heidari B, Hajian-Tilaki A. Solitary and combined negative influences of diabetes, obesity and hypertension on health-related quality of life of elderly individuals: A population-based cross-sectional study. Diabetes Metab Syndr Clin Res Rev. 2016;10(2, Supplement 1):S37–42.

  33. 33.

    Kortt MA, Clarke PM. Estimating utility values for health states of overweight and obese individuals using the SF-36. Booth B Brazier, Brown, Cawley, Chaing, Chou, Colditz, Diehr, Doll, Fanuele, Finkelstein, Fontaine, Franks, Fryback, Hakim, Hollingworth, Inoue, Jenkinson, Katz, Larsson, Lundberg, Marchesini, Nichol, O’Brien, Ohsawa, Peelers, Pi-Sunyer, Seidell, Sengupta, Spencer, Stevens, Walters, Ware, editor. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2005;14(10):2177–85.

  34. 34.

    Baxter S, Sanderson K, Venn A, Otahal P, Palmer AJ. Construct validity of SF-6D health state utility values in an employed population. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(4):851–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Norman R, Church J, van den Berg B, Goodall S. Australian health-related quality of life population norms derived from the SF-6D. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2013;37(1):17–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kortt MA, Dollery B. Association between body mass index and health-related quality of life among an Australian sample. Clin Ther. 2011;33(10):1466–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Heard C, Scuffham PA, Ratcliffe J, Whitty JA. The association between misperceptions around weight status and quality of life in adults in Australia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Clemens S, Begum N, Harper C, Whitty JA, Scuffham PA. A comparison of EQ-5D-3L population norms in Queensland, Australia, estimated using utility value sets from Australia, the UK and USA. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2375–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Hawthorne G. Assessing utility where short measures are required: development of the short assessment of quality of life-8 (AQoL-8) instrument. Value Health. 2009;12(6):948–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Le LK-D, Mihalopoulos C, Engel L, Touyz S, González-Chica DA, Stocks N, et al. Burden and health state utility values of eating disorders: results from a population-based survey. Psychol Med. 2019;1–8.

  41. 41.

    Kanesarajah J, Waller M, Whitty JA, Mishra GD. The relationship between SF-6D utility scores and lifestyle factors across three life stages: evidence from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(6):1507–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Hawthorne G, Korn S, Richardson J. Population norms for the AQoL derived from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2013;37(1):7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Khan MA, Richardson J, O’Brien P. The effect of obesity upon Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL): a comparison of the AQoL-8D and SF-36 instruments. Farmeconomia Health Econ Ther Pathw. 2012;13(2):69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Wang L, Crawford JD, Reppermund S, Trollor J, Campbell L, Baune BT, et al. Body mass index and waist circumference predict health-related quality of life, but not satisfaction with life, in the elderly. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(10):2653–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kortt MA, Clarke PM. Estimating utility values for health states of overweight and obese individuals using the SF-36. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(10):2177–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    5.2 Identifying and measuring heterogeneity [Internet]. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_9/9_5_2_identifying_and_measuring_heterogeneity.htm. Accessed 8 Jun 2020.

  47. 47.

    Fuller NR, Carter H, Schofield D, Hauner H, Jebb SA, Colagiuri S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of primary care referral to a commercial provider for weight loss treatment, relative to standard care–a modelled lifetime analysis. Int J Obes 2005. 2014;38(8):1104–9.

  48. 48.

    Karnon J, Afzali HHA, Gray J, Holton C, Banham D, Beilby J. A risk adjusted cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative models of nurse involvement in obesity management in primary care. Obesity. 2013;21(3):472–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Dalziel K, Segal L. Time to give nutrition interventions a higher profile: cost-effectiveness of 10 nutrition interventions. Health Promot Int. 2007;22(4):271–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    James R, Salton RI, Byrnes JM, Scuffham PA. Cost-utility analysis for bariatric surgery compared with usual care for the treatment of obesity in Australia. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2017;13(12):2012–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Fuller NR, Colagiuri S, Schofield D, Olson AD, Shrestha R, Holzapfel C, et al. A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of primary care referral to a commercial provider for weight loss treatment, relative to standard care—an international randomised controlled trial. Int J Obes. 2013;37(6):828–34.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    McNeil H, Segal L. Research Report 17 Quality of Life and Obesity [Internet]. Centre for Health Program Evaluation; 1999. https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/research-report-17-quality-of-life-and-obesity. Accessed 31 Jul 2020.

  53. 53.

    Trueman P, Haynes SM, Felicity Lyons G, Louise McCombie E, McQuigg MSA, Mongia S, et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of weight management in primary care. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64(6):775–83.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Pickles K, Lancsar E, Seymour J, Parkin D, Donaldson C, Carter SM. Accounts from developers of generic health state utility instruments explain why they produce different QALYs: A qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2019;1(240):112560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. A picture of overweight and obesity in Australia. [Internet]. 2017. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/overweight-obesity/a-picture-of-overweight-and-obesity-in-australia/contents/table-of-contents. Accessed 22 Apr 2020

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Bernie Carr, Academic Liaison Librarian, Fisher Library, University of Sydney, for her assistance with the literature search strategy.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph Carrello.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Joseph Carrello is supported by a Postgraduate Research Scholarship from the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre (TAPPC). Anagha Killedar is supported by a NHMRC PhD scholarship (#1169039). Amy Von Huben is supported by a Postgraduate scholarship in Health Economics-Patient Centred Care and Outcomes in Chronic Disease. Thomas Lung is supported by a NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (APP1141392) and the National Heart Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship (award 101956).

Conflict of interest

All authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Availability of data and material

The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors contributions

JC, AH, LB, SP and TL were involved in the concept and design of the paper. JC, AH, AK, AvH and TL were involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data. JC, AvH and TL were involved in the statistical analysis. JC, AH and AK were involved in drafting the manuscript. All authors were involved in the critical revision of the paper.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 119 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carrello, J., Hayes, A., Killedar, A. et al. Utility Decrements Associated with Adult Overweight and Obesity in Australia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PharmacoEconomics (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01004-x

Download citation