Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-68cz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-10T15:50:41.585Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Utilities and Quality-Adjusted Life Years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

George W. Torrance  and
David Feeny
George W. Torrance
Affiliation:
McMaster University
David Feeny
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Utilities and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) are reviewed, with particular focus on their use in technology assessment. This article provides a broad overview and perspective on these two techniques and their interrelationship, with reference to other sources for details of implementation. The historical development, assumptions, strengths/weaknesses, and applications of each are summarized.

Utilities are specifically designed for individual decision-making under uncertainty, but, with additional assumptions, utilities can be aggregated across individuals to provide a group utility function. QALYs are designed to aggregate in a single summary measure the total health improvement for a group of individuals, capturing improvements from impacts on both quantity of life and quality of life– with quality of life broadly defined. Utilities can be used as the quality-adjustment weights for QALYs; they are particularly appropriate for that purpose, and this combination provides a powerful and highly useful variation on cost-effectiveness analysis known as cost-utility analysis.

Type
Special Section: Alternative Methods for Assessing Technology, Part 1
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , October 1989 , pp. 559 - 575
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Albert, D. A.Decision theory in medicine: A review and critique. Milbank Memorial Quarterly, 1978, 56, 362–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allais, M. & Hagen, O. (eds.). Expected utility hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. P., Bush, J. W., Chen, M. & Dolenc, D.Policy space areas and properties of benefit-cost/utility analysis. Journal of the American MedicalAssociation, 1986, 255, 794–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arrow, K. J. & Debreu, G.Existence of equilibrium for a competetive economy. Econometrica 1954, 22, 265–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. E. & Farquhar, P. H.Perspectives on utility theory. Operations Research, 1986, 34, 179–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, R. L. Establishing the values of various conditions of life for a health status index. In Berg, R. L. (ed.), Health status indexes. Chicago, IL: Hospital Research and Educational Trust, 1973, 120–34.Google Scholar
Bombardier, C., Ware, J., Russell, I. J. et al. , Auranofin therapy and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a multicenter trial. American Journal of Medicine, 1986, 81, 565–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyle, M. H., Torrance, G. W., Sinclair, J. C. & Horwood, S. P.Economic evaluation of neonatal intensive care of very low birth-weight infants. New England Journal of Medicine, 1983, 308, 1330–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brookshire, D. S., Thayer, M. A., Tschirhart, J. & Schulze, W. D.A test of the expected utility model: Evidence from earthquake risks. Journal of Political Economy, 1985, 93, 369–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, J. W., Chen, M. M. & Patrick, D. L. Health status index in cost effectiveness: Analysis of PKU program. In Berg, R. L. (ed.), Health status indexes. Chicago, IL: Hospital Research and Educational Trust, 1973, 172–209.Google Scholar
Bush, J. W., Fanshel, S. & Chen, M. M.Analysis of a tuberculin testing program using a health status index. Socio-Economic Planning Science, 1972, 6, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buxton, M., Ashby, J. & O'Hanlon, M.Valuation of health states using the time trade-off approach. HERG Discussion Paper #2. Uxbridge, Middlesex: Brunel University, Health Economics Research Group, 1986.Google Scholar
Churchill, D. N., Torrance, G. W., Taylor, D. W. et al. , Measurement of quality of life in end-stage renal disease: The time trade-off approach. Clinical Investigative Medicine, 1987, 10, 14–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Drummond, M. F., Stoddart, G. L. & Torrance, G. W.Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1987.Google Scholar
Dyer, J. S. & Sarin, R. K.Group preference aggregation rules based on strength of preference. Management Science, 1979, 25, 822–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanshel, S. & Bush, J. W.A health status index and its application to health services outcomes. Operations Research, 1970, 18, 1021–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farquhar, P. H.Utility assessment methods. Management Science, 1984, 30, 1283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeny, D. & Furlong, W. The utility approach to the measurement of health-related quality of life. In Shumaker, S. A., Furberg, C. D., Czajkowski, S. & Schron, E. (eds.), Quality of life and cardiovascular disease. In press.Google Scholar
Feeny, D., Guyatt, G. & Tugwell, P. (eds.). Health care technology: Effectiveness, efficiency and public policy. Montreal: The Institute for Research and Public Policy, 1986.Google Scholar
Feeny, D. & Torrance, G. W.Incorporating utility-based quality-of-life assessment measures in clinical trials: Two examples. Medical Care, 1989, 27 (Suppl. 3), S190–S204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, G. W.Utility models for multiple objective decisions: Do they accurately represent human preferences? Decision Sciences, 1979, 10, 451–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furlong, W., Feeny, D., Torrance, G. W. et al. , Guide to design and development of health state utility instrumentation. Working paper. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. 1990.Google Scholar
Guyatt, G. H., Drummond, M., Feeny, D. et al. , Guidelines for the clinical and economic evaluation of health care technologies. Social Science and Medicine, 1986, 22, 393–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagen, O. & Wenstop, F. (eds.) Progress in utility and risk theory. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J.Nonlinear social welfare functions. Theory and Decision, 1975, 6, 311–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hershey, J. C., Kunreuther, H. C. & Schoemaker, P. J. H.Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Science, 1982, 28, 936–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hey, J.Uncertainty in microeconomics. New York: New York University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Hildrith, C.Alternative conditions for social orderings. Econometrica, 1953, 21, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holloway, C. A.Decision making under uncertainty: Models and choices. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979.Google Scholar
Howard, R. A.Decision analysis: Practice and promise. Management Science, 1988, 34, 679–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (eds.) Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalai, E. & Schmeidler, D.Aggregation procedure for cardinal preferences: A formulation and proof of Samuelson's impossibility conjecture. Econometrica, 1977, 45, 1431–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassirer, J. P., Moskowitz, A. J., Lau, J. & Pauker, S. G.Decision analysis: A progress report. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1987, 106, 275–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeler, E. B. & Cretin, S.Discounting of life-saving and other nonmonetary effects. Management Science, 1983, 29, 300–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R. L.A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Management Science, 1976, 23, 140–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R. L.Decision-analysis: an overview. Operations Research, 1982, 30, 803–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeney, R. L. & Raiffa, H.Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley, 1976.Google Scholar
Krumins, P. E., Fihn, S. O. & Kent, D. L.Symptom severity and patients' values in the decision to perform a transurethral resection of the prostate. Medical Decision Making, 1988, 8, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lane, D. A.Utility, decision, and quality of life. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1987, 40, 585–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loomes, G. & McKenzie, L.The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Social Science and Medicine, 1989, 28, 299–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luce, R. D. & Raiffa, H.Games and decisions. New York: Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
MacCrimmon, K. R. & Larsson, S. Utility theory: Axioms versus paradoxes. In Allais, M. & Hagen, O. (eds.), Expected utility and the Allais Paradox. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1979, 333–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeil, B. & Pauker, S. G.Decision analysis for public health: Principles and illustrations. Annual Review of Public Health, 1984, 5, 135–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehrez, A. & Gafni, A.Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Medical Decision Making, 1989, 9, 142–49CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pauker, S. G.Coronary artery surgery: The use of decision analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1976, 85, 8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pauker, S. G., Torrance, G. W. & McNeil, B. J. Using the patient utility measurement set (PUMS) to measure health related quality of life in a clinical trial: Patient responses to alternative treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Quade, E. S.Analysis for public decisions. New York: North Holland, 1982.Google Scholar
Raiffa, H.Decision analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1968.Google Scholar
Read, J. L., Quinn, R. J., Berwick, D. M. et al. , Preferences for health outcomes: Comparison of assessment methods. Medical Decision Making, 1984, 4, 315–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosser, R. & Kind, P.A scale of valuations of states of illness: Is there a social consensus? International Journal of Epidemiology, 1978, 7, 347–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, R. R. & Wilkinson, M.Microeconomics: A synthesis of modern and neoclassical theory. New York: Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
Sackett, D. L. & Torrance, G. W.The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1978, 31, 697–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samuelson, W. & Zeckhauser, R.Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1988, 1, 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoemaker, P. J. H.Experiments on decision under risk: The expected utility hypothesis. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoemaker, P. J. H.The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitation. Journal of Economic Literature, 1982, 20, 529–63.Google Scholar
Schwartz, W. B., Gorry, G. A., Kassirer, J. P. et al. , Decision analysis and clinical judgment. American Journal of Medicine, 1973, 55, 459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P. & Tversky, A.Who accepts Savage's axioms? Behavioral Sciences, 1974, 19, 368–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sox, H. C., Blatt, M. A., Higgins, M. C. & Marton, K.I.Medical decision making. Boston, MA: Butterworths, 1988.Google Scholar
Torrance, G. W.Toward a utility theory foundation for health status index models. Health Services Research, 1976, 11, 349–69.Google Scholar
Torrance, G. W.Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 1976, 10, 129–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrance, G. W.Measurement of health-state utilities for economic appraisal: A review. Journal of Health Economics, 1986, 5, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrance, G. W.Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1987, 40, 593–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torrance, G. W., Boyle, M. H. & Horwood, S. P.Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Research, 1982, 30, 1043–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torrance, G. W., Thomas, W. H. & Sackett, D. L.A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Research, 1972, 7, 118–33.Google ScholarPubMed
Torrance, G. W. & Zipursky, A.Cost-effectiveness of antepartum prevention of Rh immunization. Clinics in Perinatology, 1984, 11, 267–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von, Neumann J. & Morgenstern, O.Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1944.Google Scholar
Weinstein, M. C.Economic assessments of medical practices and technologies. Medical Decision Making, 1981, 1, 309–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinstein, M. C., Fineberg, H. C. et al. , Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders, 1980.Google Scholar
Weinstein, M. C. & Stasson, W. B.Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 296, 716–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, A.Economics of coronary artery by-pass grafting. British Medical Journal, 1985, 291, 326–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar