Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcomes Measurement for Economic Evaluation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mental Health Economics

Abstract

Benefits or outcomes are used in economic evaluation to assess welfare maximization or health gain, depending on theoretical view – whether its a welfarist or extra-welfarist perspective. On the other hand, the measurement of health outcomes are usually related to clinical symptoms, physical functioning, and quality of life. In the Mental Health field, using exclusively clinical outcomes is not appropriate to capture all benefits obtained from treatments. Social and psychological dimensions are also crucial components to evaluate mental health gains. In economic evaluation, the choice of outcome should be based on the relevance to the patient’s health and quality of life. Therefore, several challenges exist in defining the best mental health outcome in economic evaluation. In an extra-welfarist approach, outcomes in economic evaluation are classified into two main groups: one not based on client preferences (so-called measures), and a second based on client preferences (so-called values). Methods for assessing measures are scales based on specific and nonspecific disease symptoms. Methods for assessing outcome values are standard gamble, time trade-off, rating scales, and ratio scales. Only standard gamble assesses utility because it involves preferences based on uncertainty. The person trade-off method and multiattribute tools use expert panels and indirect methods, respectively, to assess outcome values. The capability approach has recently emerged as a new alternative to welfarist approach, focusing in broader measurement of outcomes related to individual’s capability and quality of life. This concept was operationalized into a multidimensional instrument for the Mental Health field: ICECAP-MH. In the welfarist approach, outcomes are expressed in monetary units and assessed mainly by contingent valuation (CV; willingness-to-pay method) and discrete experiment choice. This chapter describes these methods and discusses their advantages and disadvantages for economic evaluation in the Mental Health field.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Birch S, Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where’s the ‘extra’ in extra-welfarism? Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(5):1121–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brouwer WB, Culyer AJ, van Exel NJ, Rutten FF. Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ. 2008;27(2):325–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brazier JE, Dixon S, Ratcliffe J. The role of patient preferences in cost-effectiveness analysis: a conflict of values? PharmacoEconomics. 2009;27(9):705–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Byford S, Sefton T. Economic evaluation of complex health and social care interventions. Natl Inst Econ Rev. 2003;186:98–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Coast J. Is economic evaluation in touch with society’s health values? BMJ. 2004;329(7476):1233–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Coast J. Maximisation in extra-welfarism: a critique of the current position in health economics. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(5):786–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Knapp M. Economic outcomes and levers: impacts for individuals and society. Int Psychogeriatr. 2007;19(3):483–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Drummond M, McGuire A. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dolan P. Utilitarianism and the measurement and aggregation of quality – adjusted life years. Health Care Anal. 2001;9(1):65–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dolan PA, Olsen JA. Equity in health: the importance of different health streams. J Health Econ. 2001;20(5):823–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ. 2001;10(1):39–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Thornicroft G, Tansella M. Mental health outcomes measures. 3rd ed. Glasgow: RC Psych Publications; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Brazier J. Measuring and valuing mental health for use in economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(Suppl3):70–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gray A, Clarke P, Wolstenholme J, Worsworth S. Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coast J, Kinghorn P, Mitchell P. The development of capability measures in health economics: opportunities, challenges and progress. Patient. 2015;8(2):119–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mitchell PM, Al-Janabi H, Richardson J, Iezzi A, Coast J. The relative impacts of disease on health status and capability wellbeing: a multi-country study. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0143590.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Mitchell PM, Roberts TE, Barton PM, Coast J. Assessing sufficient capability: a new approach to economic evaluation. Soc Sci Med. 2015;139:71–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Simon J, Anand P, Gray A, Rugkasa J, Yeeles K, Burns T. Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research. Soc Sci Med. 2013;98:187–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mortimer D, Segal L. Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28:66–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J. 2008;118:215–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dolan P, Metcalfe R. Valuing health: a brief report on subjective well-being versus preferences. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(4):578–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Versteegh MM, Brouwer WB. Patient and general public preferences for health states: a call to reconsider current guidelines. Soc Sci Med. 2016;165:66–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(6):593–603.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Von Neuman J, Morgenstein O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Prades J. Is the person trade off a valid method for allocating health care resources? Health Econ. 1997;6:71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bennett KJ. Development and testing of a utility measure for major, unipolar depression (McSad). 2000

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. Am Psychol. 1984;39(4):341–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ. 1997;16(2):155–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences–II: scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(5):459–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Konig H, Gunther O, Angrmeyer M, Roick C. Utility assessment in patient with mental disorders: validity and discriminative ability of the time trade off method. PharmacoEconomics. 2009;27(5):405–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1999;4(3):174–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Guscott R. Cost-utility analysis in depression: the McSad utility measure for depression health states. Psychiatr Serv. 2000;51(9):1171–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Mak. 2001;21(4):329–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Voruganti LN, Awad AG, Oyewumi LK, Cortese L, Zirul S, Dhawan R. Assessing health utilities in schizophrenia. A feasibility study. PharmacoEconomics. 2000;17(3):273–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lenert LA, Sturley AP, Rapaport MH, Chavez S, Mohr PE, Rupnow M. Public preferences for health states with schizophrenia and a mapping function to estimate utilities from positive and negative symptom scale scores. Schizophr Res. 2004;71(1):155–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Revicki DA, Wood M. Patient-assigned health state utilities for depression-related outcomes: differences by depression severity and antidepressant medications. J Affect Disord. 1998;48(1):25–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Briggs A, Wild D, Lees M, Reaney M, Dursun S, Parry D, et al. Impact of schizophrenia and schizophrenia treatment-related adverse events on quality of life: direct utility elicitation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Revicki DA, Hanlon J, Martin S, Gyulai L, Nassir GS, Lynch F, et al. Patient-based utilities for bipolar disorder-related health states. J Affect Disord. 2005;87(2–3):203–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nord E. The person trade-off approaching to valuing health care programs. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(3):201–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Arnesen T, Nord E. The value of DALY life: problems with ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years. BMJ. 1999;319(7222):1423–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Kopec JA, Willison KD. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(4):317–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Richardson J, Khan MA, Iezzi A, Maxwell A. Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(3):276–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lamers LM, Bouwmans CA, van Straten A, Donker MC, Hakkaart L. Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ. 2006;15(11):1229–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(6):1523–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. McDonough CM, Tosteson AN. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. PharmacoEconomics. 2007;25(2):93–106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Brazier J. Is the EQ-5D fit for purpose in mental health? Br J Psychiatry. 2010;197(5):348–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Brazier J, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, et al. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(34):vii–xxv.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Parry G. How valid and responsive are generic health status measures, such as EQ-5D and SF-36, in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Value Health. 2011;14(6):907–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Mavranezouli I, Brazier JE, Rowen D, Barkham M. Estimating a preference-based index from the clinical outcomes in routine evaluation-outcome measure (CORE-OM): valuation of CORE-6D. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(3):381–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Gafni A. Willingness to pay in the context of an economic evaluation of healthcare programs: theory and practice. Am J Manag Care. 1997;3(Suppl):S21–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy. 1999;47(2):97–123.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 1998;7(4):313–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ryan M, Watson V, Amaya-Amaya M. Methodological issues in the monetary valuation of benefits in healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2003;3(6):717–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Quevedo J, Contreras Hernández I, Espinosa JG, scuderoII G. The willingness-to-pay concept in question. Rev Saude Publica. 2009:43(2).

    Google Scholar 

  58. McIntosh E, Donaldson C, Ryan M. Recent advances in the methods of cost-benefit analysis in healthcare. Matching the art to the science. PharmacoEconomics. 1999;15(4):352–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Smith DM, Damschroder LJ, Kim SY, Ubel PA. What’s it worth? Public willingness to pay to avoid mental illnesses compared with general medical illnesses. Psychiatr Serv. 2012;63(4):319–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Franklin M. The role of utility, health, and capabilities in economic evaluation: a case study in frail older people. Nottingham: The University of Nottingham; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre of Economic Mental Health (CESM), Department of Psychiatry, Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo, Rua Borges Lagoa 570, 1° andar, São Paulo, Brazil, 04038-000

    Denise Razzouk

Authors
  1. Denise Razzouk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denise Razzouk .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre of Economic Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Denise Razzouk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Razzouk, D. (2017). Outcomes Measurement for Economic Evaluation. In: Razzouk, D. (eds) Mental Health Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55266-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55266-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55265-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55266-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation