What outcomes matter to patients?
- 36 Downloads
OBJECTIVE: This study estimates the relative value to patients of physical, mental, and social health when making treatment decisions. Despite recommendations to use patient preferences to guide treatment decisions, little is known about how patients value different dimensions of their health status.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional data from quasi-experimental, prospective study.
SETTING: Forty-six primary care clinics in managed care organizations in California, Texas, Minnesota, Maryland, and Colorado.
PATIENTS: Consecutive adult outpatients (n=16,689) visiting primary care providers.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short Form (SF-12) health-related quality of life and patient preferences for their current health status, as assessed by standard gamble and time trade-off utility methods, were measured. Only 5% of the variance in standard gamble and time trade-off was explained by the SF-12. Within the SF-12, physical health contributes substantially to patient preferences (35%–55% of the relative variance explained); however, patients also place a high value on their mental health (29%–42%) and on social health (16%–23%). The contribution of mental health to preferences is stronger in patients with chronic conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient preferences, which should be driving treatment decisions, are related to mental and social health nearly as much as they are to physical health. Thus, medical practice should strive to balance concerns for all three health domains in making treatment decisions, and health care resources should target medical treatments that improve mental and social health outcomes.
Key wordspatient preferences cost-effectiveness health values physical mental and social health
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
- 11.Wells KB, Sturm R, Sherbourne CD, Meredith LS. Caring for Depression. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
- 13.World Health Organization. World Health Organization constitution. In: Basic Documents. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1948.Google Scholar
- 15.McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
- 16.Stewart AL, Ware JE Jr. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach, Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
- 17.Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health Status and Health Policy: Quality of Life in Health Care Evaluation and Resource Allocation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
- 18.Bennett KJ, Torrance GW. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble techniques. In: Spiker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996:253–65.Google Scholar
- 28.Feeney DH, Torrance GW, Furlong WJ. Health Utilities Index. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Reven Publishers; 1996:239–52.Google Scholar
- 29.Kind P. The EuroQoL Instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996:191–201.Google Scholar
- 30.Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. The general health policy model: an integrated approach. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996;309–22.Google Scholar
- 32.Stewart AL, Sherbourne CD, Hays RD et al. Summary and discussion of MOS measures. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE Jr, eds. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1992:345–71.Google Scholar
- 33.Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller S. SF-12: How to Score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. 2nd ed. Boston, Mass: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1995.Google Scholar
- 34.World Health Organization. Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) Core Version 2.1 Interviewer’s Manual. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1997.Google Scholar
- 36.Donald CA, Ware JE Jr. The Quantification of Social Contacts and Resources. R-2937-HHS. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND; 1982.Google Scholar
- 37.Depression Guidelines Panel. Depression in Primary Care: Volume 2. Treatment of Major Depression. Rockville, Md: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1993. AHCPR publication 93-0551.Google Scholar
- 39.Spiegel D. Health caring: psychosocial support for patients with cancer. Cancer Suppl. 1994;74(4):1453–7.Google Scholar
- 42.Isselbacher KJ, Braunwald E, Wilson JD, Martin JB, Fauci AS, Kasper DL. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine. 13th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1994.Google Scholar