Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Well Do the Generic Multi-attribute Utility Instruments Incorporate Patient and Public Views Into Their Descriptive Systems?

  • Review Article
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are increasingly being used to generate utility data, which can be used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). These QALY data can then be incorporated into a cost–utility analysis as part of an economic evaluation, to inform health care resource allocation decisions. Many health care decision-making bodies around the world, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, require the use of generic MAUIs. Recently, there has been a call for greater input of patients into the development of patient-reported outcome measures, and this is now actively encouraged. By incorporating the views of patients, greater validity of an instrument is expected and it is more likely that patients will be able to self-complete the instrument, which is the ideal when obtaining information about a patient’s health-related quality of life. This paper examines the stages of MAUI development and the scope for patient and/or public involvement at each stage. The paper then reviews how much the main generic MAUIs have incorporated the views of patients/the public into the development of their descriptive systems at each of these stages, and the implications of this. The review finds that the majority of MAUIs had very little input from patients/the public. Instead, existing literature and/or the views of experts were used. If we wish to incorporate patient/public views into future development of MAUIs, qualitative methods are recommended.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Introduction to the measurement and valuation of health. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 7–33.

  2. EuroQol. http://www.euroqol.org/. Accessed 23 Sept 2014.

  3. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, et al. Multi-attribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40(2):113–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Modelling health state valuation data. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 139–56.

  5. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Describing health. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 55–76.

  6. Brazier JE, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Yang Y, Barkham M, Ibbotson R. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(32):1–114.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf. Accessed 23 Sept 2014.

  8. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Valuing health. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 5. Oxford: University Press; 2007. p. 83–117.

  9. McColl E. Developing questionnaires. In: Fayers P, Hays R, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2014.

  11. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy N, Martin ML, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14:967–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stevens K, Palfreyman S. The use of qualitative methods in developing the descriptive systems of preference-based measures of health-related quality of life for use in economic evaluation. Value Health. 2012;15(8):991–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith SC, Lamping DL, Banerjee S, Harwood R, Foley B, Smith P, et al. Measurement of health-related quality of life for people with dementia: development of a new instrument (DEMQOL) and an evaluation of current methodology. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(10):1–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. The Nottingham Health Profile user’s manual. Manchester: Galen Research and Consultancy; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Young T, et al. The first stage of developing preference-based measures: constructing a health-state classification using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(2):253–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Richardson J, McKie J, Bariola E. Review and critique of health related multi attribute utility instruments. CHE Research Paper Series. Melbourne: Monash University; 2011; 64.

  17. Moodie M, Richardson J, Rankin B, Sinha K, Lezzi A. Predicting time trade-off health state valuations of adolescents in four Pacific countries using the AQoL-6D instrument. CHE Research Paper Series. Melbourne: Monash University; 2009; 43.

  18. Stevens K. Valuation of the child health utility 9D index. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(8):729–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gudex C. The descriptive system of the EuroQol instrument. In: Kind P, Brooks R, Rabin R, editors. EQ-5D concepts and methods: a developmental history. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  20. van Dalen H, Williams A, Gudex C. Lay people’s evaluations of health: are there variations between different subgroups? J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1994;48:248–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gudex C. Are we lacking a dimension of energy in the EuroQol instrument? In: Bjork S, editor. EuroQol conference proceedings, Lund, October 1991. IHE Working Paper 92:2. Lund: Swedish Institute for Health Economics; 1992. pp. 61–72.

  22. Brooks R. Descriptive system. In: Brooks R, editor. The EuroQol group after 25 years. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013. p. 37–64.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. van Reenen M, Janssen B, Oppe M, Kreimeier S, Greiner W. EQ-5D-Y user guide. http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/publications/user-guide.html. Accessed 12 Nov 2014.

  25. Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, et al. Development of the EQ-5DY: a child friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:875–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burstrom K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar A, Gusi N, Herd M. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):887–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Longworth L, Yang Y, Young T, Mulhern B, Hernandez M, Mukuria C, Rowen D, Tosh J, Tsuchiya A, Evans P, Keetharuth A, Brazier J. Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, Tsuchiya A. Methods for obtaining health state values: generic preference-based measures of health and the alternatives. In: Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation; chapter 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 175–239.

  29. QualityMetric Incorporated. SF tools. http://www.sf-36.org/tools/SF36.shtml#VERS2. Accessed 13 Mar 2008.

  30. Brazier JE, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based single index measure for health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ware JE, Kolinski M, Keller SD. How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summaries: a user’s manual. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang QA. Multi-attribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Mark 2. Med Care. 1996;34(7):702–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Cadman D, Goldsmith C, Torrance GW, et al. Development of a health status index for Ontario children. Hamilton: McMaster University; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  34. McCabe C. Estimating preference weights for a paediatric health state classification (HUI2) and a comparison of methods. PhD thesis. Sheffield: The University of Sheffield; May 2003.

  35. Sintonen H, Pekurinen M. A generic 15 dimensional measure of health-related quality of life (15D). J Soc Med. 1989;26:85–96.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sintonen H. The 15-D measure of health related quality of life: reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. Centre for Health Programme Evaluation: Working Paper 41. Melbourne: Monash University; 1994.

  37. Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):328–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. The Quality of Well-Being scale: rationale for a single quality of life index. In: Walker SR, Rosse RM, editors. Quality of life: assessment and application. London: MTP Press; 1988. p. 51–77.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Stevens KJ. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference-based, generic, pediatric health-related quality-of-life measure. Qual Health Res. 2010;20:340–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Stevens KJ. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1105–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Stevens KJ. Assessing the performance of a new generic measure of health related quality of life for children and refining it for use in health state valuation. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(3):157–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Farnik M, Pierzchala W. Instrument development and evaluation for patient related outcome assessments. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2012;3:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Brod M, Tesler L, Christensen T. Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(9):1263–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. UK Department of Health. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_117353. Accessed 24 Sept 2014.

  45. Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Coast J. Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:167–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:1891–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Keeley T, Al-Janabi H, Lorgelly P, Coast J. A qualitative assessment of the content validity of the ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L and their appropriateness for use in health research. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e85287.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Horwood J, Sutton E, Coast J. Evaluating the face validity of the ICECAP-O capabilities measure: a “think-aloud” study with hip and knee arthroplasty patients. Appl Res Qual Life. 2014;9(3):667–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Al-Janabi H, Coast J, Flynn TN. What do people value when they provide unpaid care? A meta-ethnography with interview follow-up. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:111–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding and conflict of interest

There was no funding source for this paper. The author is the developer of the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D), which is discussed in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK

    Katherine J. Stevens

Authors
  1. Katherine J. Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine J. Stevens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stevens, K.J. How Well Do the Generic Multi-attribute Utility Instruments Incorporate Patient and Public Views Into Their Descriptive Systems?. Patient 9, 5–13 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0119-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0119-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation