, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 83–86 | Cite as

Health Utility Elicitation

Is There Still a Role for Direct Methods?
  • Lisa A. Prosser
  • Scott D. Grosse
  • Eve Wittenberg
Editorial Health Utility Elicitation



The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No sources of funding were used to prepare this article.


  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
  2. 2.
    Miller W, Robinson L, Lawrence R, editors. Valuing health for regulatory cost-effectiveness analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lieu TA, Meltzer MI, Messonnier ML, the ACIP Ad Hoc Working Group on Economic Analyses. Guidance for health economics studies presented to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 2007 Nov 13 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    College voor zorgverzekeringen. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research, updated version. Diemen: CVZ, 2006 Mar [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
  6. 6.
    Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Version 4.3. Canberra (ACT): Department of Health and Ageing, 2008 Dec [online]. Available from URL:$File/PBAC4.3.2.pdf [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
  7. 7.
    Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa (ON): CADTH, 2006 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
  8. 8.
    Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen. General methods for the assessment of the relation of benefits to costs. Version 1.0. Cologne: IQWiG, 2009 Nov 19 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
  9. 9.
    Collège des Économistes de la Santé. French guidelines for the economic evaluation of health care technologies. Paris: CES, 2004 Sep [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]
  10. 10.
    Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, et al. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 2006; 9 (4): 213–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prosser LA, Wittenberg E. Trends in utility elicitation methods: is there still a role for direct elicitation? [abstract]. Med Decis Making 2011 Jan-Feb; 31: E63–64Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prosser LA, Hammitt JK, Keren R. Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: theoretical and methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25 (9): 713–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petrou S. Should health gains by children be given the same value as health gains by adults in an economic evaluation framework? In: Ungar WJ, editor. Economic evaluation in child health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010: 271–87Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wright DR, Wittenberg E, Swan JS, et al. Methods for measuring temporary health states for cost-utility analyses. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27 (9): 713–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Basu A, Dale W, Elstein A, et al. A time tradeoff method for eliciting partner’s quality of life due to patient’s health states in prostate cancer. Med Decis Making 2010; 30 (3): 355–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neumann PJ, Kuntz KM, Leon J, et al. Health utilities in Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study of patients and caregivers. Med Care 1999; 37 (1): 27–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schulz R, Martire LM. Family caregiving of persons with dementia: prevalence, health effects, and support strategies. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004 May-Jun; 12 (3): 240–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tilford JM, Grosse SD, Robbins JM, et al. Health state preference scores of children with spina bifida and their caregivers. Qual Life Res 2005 May; 14 (4): 1087–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bell C, Araki S, Neumann P. The association between caregiver burden and caregiver health-related quality of life in Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2001; 15 (3): 129–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brouwer WB. Too important to ignore: informal caregivers and other significant others. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (1): 39–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petrou S. Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Econ 2003; 12 (8): 697–702PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davidson T, Levin LA. Is the societal approach wide enough to include relatives? Incorporating relatives’ costs and effects in a cost-effectiveness analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2010; 8 (1): 25–35Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bobinac A, van Exel JA, Rutten FF, et al. Health effects in significant others: separating family and care-giving effects. Med Decis Making 2011 Mar-Apr; 31 (2): 292–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bobinac A, van Exel NJ, Rutten FF, et al. Caring for and caring about: disentangling the caregiver effect and the family effect. J Health Econ 2010; 29 (4): 549–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neumann PJ. What next for QALYs? JAMA 2011 May 4; 305 (17): 1806–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marshall DB, Bridges JFP, Hauber B, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health: how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient 2010 Dec; 3 (4): 249–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grosse SD, Wordsworth S, Payne K. Economic methods for valuing the outcomes of genetic testing: beyond costeffectiveness analysis. Genet Med 2008; 10 (9): 648–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ratcliffe J, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, et al. Using DCE and ranking data to estimate cardinal values for health states for deriving a preference-based single index from the sexual quality of life questionnaire. Health Econ 2009; 18 (11): 1261–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Flynn TN. Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values: issues to consider. Pharmacoeconomics 2010 Sep 1; 28 (9): 711–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stiglitz J, Sen A, Fitoussi J. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Paris: CMEPSP, 2010 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Nov 15]Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med 2008 Sep; 67 (5): 874–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa A. Prosser
    • 1
  • Scott D. Grosse
    • 2
  • Eve Wittenberg
    • 3
  1. 1.Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit, Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, Division of General PediatricsUniversity of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations