Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Comparison of Individual and Group Valuation of Health State Scenarios across Communities in West Africa

  • 36 Accesses

  • 6 Citations

Abstract

Background

The correct valuation of health state scenarios is important for economic analyses, disease burden assessment and setting clinical guidelines. However, it is unclear whether we should use individual or group valuations. We aimed to compare individual and group valuations of a range of clinically and culturally relevant health state scenarios in a West African population.

Methods

Seventy subjects were purposely selected from seven randomly selected communities in a health district in Burkina Faso. Subjects were presented with ten health state scenarios. The valuation of the scenarios was with a culturally adapted visual analogue scale. Fixed-effects ANOVA were used to compare individual valuations from the seven locations. A paired t-test was used to compare individual mean and group valuations. The differences in the ranking of valuations were investigated using the Spearman rank correlation coefficients.

Results

On average, group valuations of the disability associated with the scenarios were higher than individual mean valuations by 20% (p = 0.00). The range of group valuations was wider than that of individual mean valuations. The differences in individual valuations of five scenarios across communities were significant (p ≤ 0.01). Within the communities, group and individual rankings of scenarios differed. Across five communities, they correlated significantly and positively.

Conclusions

Groups valued the disability associated with health state scenarios as being more severe than individuals. Group valuations could more clearly identify the preferences of different community groups. The use of one group’s opinion in setting priorities and making guidelines that relate to the public still requires some caution. Policies that do not account for systematic subgroup differences should be made with caution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Dolan P. Output measures and valuation in health. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2001: 46–67

  2. 2.

    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

  3. 3.

    Baltussen RM, Sanon M, Sommerfeld J, et al. Obtaining disability weights in rural Burkina Faso using a culturally adapted visual analogue scale. Health Econ 2002 Mar; 11(2): 155–63

  4. 4.

    Mahapatra P, Salomon JA, Nanda L. Measuring health state values in developing countries: results from a community survey in Andhra Pradesh. In: Murray CJL, Salomon JA, Mathers CD, et al., editors. Summary measures of population health: concepts, ethics, measurement and applications. Geneva: WHO, 2002: 473–85

  5. 5.

    Murray CJL. Rethinking DALYs. In: Murray CJL, Lopez AD, editors. The global burden of disease. Boston (MA): The Harvard School of Public Health, 1996: 1–98

  6. 6.

    Brazier JE, Roberts J, Platts M, et al. Estimating a preference-based index for a menopause specific health quality of life questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005 Mar; 3(1): 13

  7. 7.

    Suarez-Almazor ME, Conner-Spady B. Rating of arthritis health states by patients, physicians, and the general public: implications for cost-utility analyses. J Rheumatol 2001 Mar; 28(3): 648–56

  8. 8.

    Ubel PA, Loewenstein 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 Sep; 12(6): 599–607

  9. 9.

    Bell CM, Chapman RH, Stone PW, et al. An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses. Med Decis Making 2001; 21(4): 288–94

  10. 10.

    De Wit GA, Busschbach JJ, De Charro FT. Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ 2000 Mar; 9(2): 109–26

  11. 11.

    Sculpher M, Gafni A. Recognizing diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2001 Jun; 10(4): 317–24

  12. 12.

    Bridges JFP. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2(4): 213–24

  13. 13.

    Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005; 4(4): 201–8

  14. 14.

    Danis M, Patrick DL, Southerland LI, et al. Patients’ and families’ preferences for medical intensive care. JAMA 1988 Aug; 260(6): 797–802

  15. 15.

    Wailoo A, Anand P. The nature of procedural preferences for health-care rationing decisions. Soc Sci Med 2005 Jan; 60(2): 223–36

  16. 16.

    Dolan P. Aggregating health state valuations. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997 Jul; 2(3): 160–5

  17. 17.

    Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher 1989; 18(1): 32–42

  18. 18.

    Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park (CA): SAGE Publications, Inc., 1990

  19. 19.

    Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment 2001; 5(5): 1–186

  20. 20.

    Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in healthcare: focus group study. BMJ 1999 Apr; 318(7188): 916–9

  21. 21.

    De Allegri M, Sanon M, Bridges J, et al. Understanding consumers’ preferences and decision to enrol in community-based health insurance in rural West Africa. Health Policy 2006 Mar; 76(1): 58–71

  22. 22.

    Dong H, Kouyate B, Cairns J, et al. Inequality in willingness-to-pay for community-based health insurance. Health Policy 2005 May; 72(2): 149–56

  23. 23.

    Mahapatra P, Nanda L, Rajshree KT. The 6D5L description system for health state valuation. In: Murray CJL, Salomon JA, Mathers CD, et al., editors. Summary measures of population health: concepts, ethics, measurement and applications. Geneva: WHO, 2002: 349–67

  24. 24.

    Reidpath DD, Allotey PA, Kouame A, et al. Measuring health in a vacuum: examining the disability weight of the DALY. Health Policy Plan 2003 Dec; 18(4): 351–6

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the interviewees and the interviewers. They are also grateful to the funding agents, the German SFB 544 “Kontrolle tropischer Infektionskrankheiten” (D2, Tropical Hygiene and Public Health, University of Heidelberg). The suggestions of the two independent reviewers contributed immensely in improving the quality of this paper.

The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

Author information

Correspondence to Dr Anayo Fidelis Akunne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Akunne, A.F., Bridges, J.F.P., Sanon, M. et al. Comparison of Individual and Group Valuation of Health State Scenarios across Communities in West Africa. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 5, 261–268 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00148365-200605040-00007

Download citation

Keywords

  • Malaria
  • Cholera
  • Group Score
  • Group Preference
  • Full Health