Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:17:08.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Evaluation of Health Care Versus Personal Evaluation of Health States: Evidence on the Validity of Four Health-state Scaling Instruments Using Norwegian and Australian Surveys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Erik Nord ,
Jeff Richardson  and
Kelly Macarounas-Kirchmann
Erik Nord
Affiliation:
Norwegian National Institute of Public Health
Jeff Richardson
Affiliation:
Australian National Centre for Health Programme Evaluation
Kelly Macarounas-Kirchmann
Affiliation:
Australian National Centre for Health Programme Evaluation
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In most of the cost-utility literature, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains are interpreted as a measure of social value. Given this interpretation, the validity of different multi-attribute health-state scaling instruments may be tested by comparing the values they provide on the 0–1 QALY scale with directly elicited preferences for person trade-offs between different treatments (equivalence of numbers of different patients treated). Norwegian and Australian public preferences as measured by the person trade-off suggest that the EuroQol Instrument assigns excessively low values to health states. This seems to be even more true of the McMaster Health Classification System. The Quality of Well-being Scale appears to compress states toward the middle of the 0–1 scale. By contrast, the Rosser/Kind index fits reasonably well with directly measured person trade-off data.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , Fall 1993 , pp. 463 - 478
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Brooks, R. G., Jendteg, S., Lindgren, B., et al. EuroQol: Health related quality of life measurement. Results of the Swedish questionnaire exercise. Health Policy, 1991, 18, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Drummond, M. F., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W.Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
3.Eddy, D. M.Oregon’s methods: Did cost-effectiveness analysis fail? Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991, 266, 2135–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Essink-Bot, M.·L., Bonsel, G., & van der Maas, P. J.Valuation of health states by the general public: Feasibility of a standardized measurement procedure. Social Science and Medicine, 1990, 31, 1201–06.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Gardner, M. J., & Altman, D. G.Statistics with confidence. Confidence intervals and statistical guidelines. London: British Medical Journal, 1989.Google Scholar
6.Hadorn, D. C.Setting health care priorities in Oregon. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991, 265, 2218–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Harris, J.QALYfying the value of life. Journal of Medical Ethics, 1987, 13, 117–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Kaplan, R. M. & Anderson, J. P.A general health model: Update and applications. Health Services Research, 1988, 23, 203–35Google ScholarPubMed
9.Kind, P.Measuring valuations for health states: Piloting the EuroQol questionnaire. Discussion paper no. 76. York: University of York, Centre for Health Economics, 1990.Google Scholar
10.Loomes, G.Disparities between health state measures: An explanation and some implications. Mimeo. York: Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, 1988.Google Scholar
11.Loomes, G., & McKenzie, L.The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Social Science and Medicine, 1989, 28, 299–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Mooney, G., & Olsen, J. A. QALYs: Where next? In Mcguire, A., et al. (eds.), Providing healthcare: The economics of alternative systems of finance and delivery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
13.Mulkay, M., Ashmore, M., & Pinch, T.Measuring the quality of life: A sociological invention concerning the application of economics to health care. Sociology, 1987, 21, 541–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Mulley, A. G.Assessing patients’ utilities. Can the ends justify the means? Medical Care, 1989, 27, S269–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Nord, E.EuroQol: Health related quality of life measurement: Valuations of health states by the general public in Norway. Health Policy, 1991, 18, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Nord, E.The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 1991, 6, 234–42.Google ScholarPubMed
17.Nord, E.Unjustified use of the Quality of Well-Being Scale in priority setting in Oregon. Health Policy, 1993, 24, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Nord, E.The relevance of health state after treatment in prioritizing between different patients. Journal of Medical Ethics, 1993, 19, 37–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Nord, E.Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Social Science and Medicine, 1992 34, 559–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Nord, E. The use of EuroQol values in QALY calculations. In Bjørk, S. (ed.), EuroQol conference proceedings. IHE working paper 1992, 2. Lund: Swedish Institute of Health Economics, 1992.Google Scholar
21.Nord, E.Toward quality assurance in QALY calculations. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1993, 9, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.O’Kelly, T. J., & Westaby, S.Trauma centres and the efficient use of financial resources. British Journal of Surgery, 1990, 77, 1142–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Rawls, J.A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Richardson, J. Economic assessment of health care: Theory and practice. Australian Economic Review, 1991, 1st quarter, 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Richardson, J. What should we measure in health program evaluation? In Smith, S. (ed.), Economics and health. Proceedingsfrom the 12th Australian Conference of Health Economists, Melbourne: Public Sector Management Institute, Monash University, 1991.Google Scholar
26.Richardson, J., Hall, J., & Salkeld, G. Cost-utility analysis: The compatibility of measurement techniques and the measurement of utility through time. In Smith, S. (ed.), Economics and health. Proceedings from the 11th Australian Conference of Health Economists. Melbourne: Public Sector Management Institute, Monash University, 1990.Google Scholar
27.Rosser, R. Issues of measurement in the design of health indicators: A review. In Culyer, A. J. (ed.), Health indicators. Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1983.Google Scholar
28.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
29.Smith, G. T.The economics of hypertension and stroke. American Heart Journal, 1990, 119, 725–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.The EuroQol Group. EuroQol — a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy, 1990, 16, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Torrance, G. W.Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Planning Science, 1976, 10, 129–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Torrance, G. W.Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. Journal of Health Economics, 1986, 5, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.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
34.Wagstaff, A.QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. Journal of Health Economics, 1991, 10, 21–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Weinstein, M. C., & Stason, W. B.Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health analysis and medical practices. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 296, 716–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Williams, A.Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. British Medical Journal, 1985, 291, 326–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Williams, A.Who is to live? A question for the economist or the doctor? World Hospitals, 1987, 13, 34–36.Google Scholar
38.Williams, A.The measurement and valuations of improvements in health. Newsletter 3/1988. York: University of York, Centre for Health Economics, 1988.Google Scholar