, Volume 27, Issue 9, pp 705–712 | Cite as

The Role of Patient Preferences in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

A Conflict of Values?
  • John E. Brazier
  • Simon Dixon
  • Julie Ratcliffe
Current Opinion


This paper reviews the role of patient preferences within the framework of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). CEA typically adopts a system-wide perspective by focusing upon efficiency across groups in the allocation of scarce healthcare resources, whereas treatment decisions are made over individuals. However, patient preferences have been shown to have a direct impact on the outcome of an intervention via psychological factors or indirectly via patient adherence/compliance rates. Patient values may also be in conflict with the results of CEA through the valuation of benefits. CEA relies heavily on the QALY model to reflect individual preferences, although the healthy year equivalent offers an alternative measure that may be better at taking individual preferences into account. However, both measures typically use mean general population or mean patient values and therefore create conflict with individual-level preferences.

For CEA to reflect practice, it must take into account the impact of individual patient preferences even where general population preferences are used to value the benefits of interventions. Patient preferences have implications for cost effectiveness through costs and outcomes, and it is important that cost-effectiveness models incorporate these through its structure (e.g. allowing for differing compliance rates) and parameter values, including clinical effectiveness. It will also be necessary to try to predict patient preferences in order to estimate any impact on cost effectiveness through analyses of revealed and stated preference data. It is recognized that policy makers are concerned with making interventions available to patients and not forcing them to consume healthcare. One way of moving towards this would be to adopt a two-part decision process: the identification of the most cost-effective therapy using mean general population values (i.e. the current rule), then also making available those treatments that are cheaper than the most cost-effective therapy.


Patient Preference Funding Decision Health Econ State Preference Data State Preference Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coulter A. Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2 (2): 112–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: 681–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birch S, Gafni A. On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales. Health Econ 2002; 11: 185–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brooks R, on behalf of the EuroQol Group. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35 (11): 1095–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economics evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kanis JA, Brazier JE, Stevenson M, et al. Treatment of established osteoporosis: a systematic review and cost utility analysis. Health Technol Assess 2002; 6: 29: 1–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brazier JE, Akehurst R, Brennan A, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005; 4 (4): 201–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mukuria C, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Exploring the relationship between health and happiness: a comparison across studies of different conditions using the SF-6D and EQ-5D [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2009 May 18]
  12. 12.
    Roberts J, Dolan P. To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ-5D valuation set. Health Econ 2004; 13 (7): 733–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kharroubi SA, Brazier JE, O’Hagan A. Modelling covariates for the SF-6D standard gamble health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. Soc Sci Med 2007; 64: 1242–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making 1989; 9 (2): 142–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating scale valuations. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 208–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ratcliffe J, Buxton M. Patient’s preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life saving technology: an application of conjoint analysis to liver transplantation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15: 340–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Towers I, Spencer A, Brazier J. Healthy year equivalents versus quality-adjusted life years: the debate continues. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2005; 5 (3): 245–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sculpher M, Gafni A. Recognizing diversity in public preferences: the use of preference sub-groups in cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2001; 10 (4): 317–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dixon S. Including patient choice in cost effectiveness decision rules. HEDS Discussion Paper 07/07. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 2007Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bradley C. Patient preferences and randomised trials. Lancet 1996; 347: 1118–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • John E. Brazier
    • 1
  • Simon Dixon
    • 1
  • Julie Ratcliffe
    • 2
  1. 1.Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related ResearchUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Health Economics and Policy Group, Division of Health SciencesUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations