Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?

The literature was studied on the existence of differences in valuation for hypothetical and actual health states between patients and other‐rater groups. It was found that nine different study designs have been used to study this question and two of these designs were applied in a study involving d...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Health economics 2000-03, Vol.9 (2), p.109-126
Main Authors: De Wit, G. Ardine, Busschbach, Jan J.V., De Charro, Frank Th
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Dialysis
EQ-5D
Health status
Health Status Indicators
Humans
Kidney diseases
Observer Variation
Patient Satisfaction
Patients
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Renal Dialysis
Standard Gamble
Time Trade Off
Valuation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The literature was studied on the existence of differences in valuation for hypothetical and actual health states between patients and other‐rater groups. It was found that nine different study designs have been used to study this question and two of these designs were applied in a study involving dialysis patients and other rater groups. In the first study, both dialysis patients and students had to value hypothetical health states with Standard Gamble (SG) and Time Trade Off (TTO). Patients assigned higher values to hypothetical health states than students did. In the second study, dialysis patients who were being treated with four different dialysis modalities were asked to value their own health state with SG, TTO and a visual analogue scale (EQVAS), and to describe their health state on the EQ‐5Dprofile. Several EQ‐5Dindex values (health index values derived from general population samples) were calculated for the four dialysis treatment groups, based on the EQ‐5Dprofile. These health indexes could discriminate between treatment groups, according to clinical impressions. Treatment groups could not be differentiated based on patients' valuations of own health state. The results suggest that general population samples, using EQ‐5Dindex values, may be more able to discriminate between patient groups than the patients themselves are. The implications of this finding for valuation research and policy‐making are discussed. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ISSN:1057-9230
1099-1050
DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(200003)9:2<109::AID-HEC503>3.0.CO;2-L