Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 599–607 | Cite as

Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public

  • Peter A. Ubel
  • George Loewenstein
  • Christopher Jepson
Article

Abstract

There is often a discrepancy between quality of life estimates from patients and the general public. These discrepancies are of concern to the disability community, who worry that the public does not understand how valuable life can be for people with disabilities; policy planners, who must decide whose quality of life estimates to use in economic analysis; and practitioners and patients facing difficult medical decisions, who may have to worry that people have difficulty imagining unfamiliar health states. We outline several factors that may contribute to these discrepancies. Discrepancies might occur because patients and the public interpret health state descriptions differently – for example, making different assumptions about the recency of onset of the health state, or about the presence of comorbidities. Discrepancies might also arise if patients adapt to illness and the public does not predict this adaptation; because of response shift in how people use quality of life scales; because of a focusing illusion whereby people forget to consider obvious aspects of unfamiliar health states; because of contrast effects, whereby negative life events make people less bothered by less severe negative life events; and because of different vantage points, with patients viewing their illness in terms of the benefits that would result from regaining health, while the public views the illness in terms of the costs associated with losing good health. Decisions about whose values to measure for the purposes of economic analyses, and how to measure discrepancies, should take these potential contributing factors into account.

Cost effectiveness analysis Disability Quality of life Utility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Hershey J, et al. Do nonpatients underestimate the quality of life associated with chronic health states because of a focusing illusion? Med Decis Making 2001; 21(3): 190–199.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences III. Population and context effects. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42(6): 585–592.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kane RL, Bell RM, Riegler SZ. Value preferences for nursing home outcomes. Gerontologist 1986; 26: 303–308.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nord, E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34(5): 559–569.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hall J, Gerard K, Salkeld G, Richardson J. A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34(9): 993–1004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tsevat J, Cook EF, Green M, et al. Health values for the seriously ill. Ann Int Med 1995; 122: 514–520.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsevat J, Dawson N, Wu A, et al. Health values of hospitalized patients 80 years or older. JAMA 1998; 279(5): 371–375.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ashby J, O'Hanlon M, Buxton MJ. The time trade-off technique: How do the valuations of breast cancer patients compare to those of other groups? Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 257–265.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sloan F, Viscusi WK, Chesson H, et al. Alternative approaches to valuing intangible health losses: The evidence for multiple sclerosis. J Health Econom 1998; 17: 475–497.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hurst NP, Jobanputra P, Hunter M, et al. Validity of EuroQol-a generic health status instrument-in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Brit J Rheumatol 1994; 33: 655–662.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Polsky D, Willke RJ, Scott K, et al. A comparison of scoring weight for the euroqol derived from patients and the general public. Health Econom 2001; 10: 27–37.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31: 697–704.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Karen DLT, Heasman Z, Cummings BJ. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1990; 10(1): 58–67.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brickman P, Coates D, Janoff-Bulman R. Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? J Pers Soc Psychol 1978; 36: 917–927.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hadorn DC. The problem of discrimination in health care priority setting. JAMA 1992; 268(11): 1454–1459.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J, et al. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programs. Health Econom 1999; 8: 25–39.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gold MR, Siegel J, Russell LB, Weinstein M (eds). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ubel PA, Loewenstein G. The role of decision analysis in informed consent: Choosing between intuition and systematicity. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44(5): 647–656.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schkade DA, Kahneman D. Does living in California make people happy? A focusing illusion in judgments of life satisfaction. Psychol Sci 1998; 9: 340–346.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wilson TD, Wheatley T, Meyers JM, et al. Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000; 78(5): 821–836.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG. Introduction to symposium on the challenge of response shift in social science and medicine. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1505–1507.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwartz CE, Sprangers MAG. Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related quality-of-life research. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1531–1548.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sprangers M, Schwartz C. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48(11): 1507–1515.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gibbons FX. Social comparison as mediator of response shift. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48(11): 1517–1530.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilson IB. Clinical understanding and clinical implications of response shift. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1577–88.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lenert LA, Treadwell JR, Schwartz CE. Associations between health status and utilities: Implications for policy. Med Care 1999; 37(5): 479–489.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979; 47(2): 263–291.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kahneman D, Fredrickson BL, Schreiber CA, Redelmeier DA. When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychol Sci 1993; 4(6): 401–405.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fredrickson BL, Kahneman D. Duration neglect in retrospective evaluations of affective episodes. J Pers Soc Psychol 1993; 65(1): 44–55.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Barrett LF. The relationship among momentary emotion experiences, personality, descriptions, and retrospective ratings of emotion. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1997; 23(10): 1100–1110.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shiffman S, Stone AA. Ecological momentary assessment: A new tool for behavior medicine research. In: Krants DS (ed.), Technology and Methods in Behavioral Medicine, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association, 1998; 117–131.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Frederick S, Loewenstein G. Hedonic Adaptation. In: Schwarz N (ed.), Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HL. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychol Bull 1999; 125(2): 276–302.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Loewenstein G, Frederick S. Predicting Reactions to Environmental Change. In: Wade-Benzoni K (ed.), Environment, Ethics, and Behavior, San Francisco: New Lexington Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tversky A, Griffin D. Endowment and contrast in judgments of wellbeing. In: Hogarth RM (ed.), Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; 411–428.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dar R, Ariely B, Frenk H. The effect of past injury on pain threshold and tolerance. Pain 1995; 60: 189–193.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kahneman D, Objective Happiness. In: Kahneman D, Diener E and Schwarz N (eds.), Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999; 3–19.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Taylor SE, Lobel M. Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychol Rev 1989; 96(4): 569–575.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schwarz N, Strack F. Evaluating one's life: A judgement model of subjective well-being. In: Schwarz N (ed.), Subjective well-being. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1991; 27–47.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ubel PA, Richardson J, Menzel P. Societal value, the person trade-off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econom 2000; 9: 127–136.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ubel PA, Jepson C, Baron J. The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids: Effects on treatment choices. Med Decis Making 2001; 21(1): 60–68.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. Ubel
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • George Loewenstein
    • 4
  • Christopher Jepson
    • 5
  1. 1.VA Health Services Research and Development Center of ExcellenceVA Ann Arbor Healthcare SystemAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of MichiganUSA
  3. 3.Program for Improving Health Care DecisionsUniversity of MichiganUSA
  4. 4.Department of Social and Decision SciencesCarnegie Mellon UniversityUSA
  5. 5.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of Pennsylvania, School of MedicineUSA

Personalised recommendations