Decisions about resource allocation are increasingly based on value trade-offs between health outcomes and cost. This process relies on comprehensive and standardized definitions of health status that accurately measure the physical, mental, and social well-being of patients across disease states. These metrics, assessed through clinical trials, observational studies, and health surveys, can facilitate the integration of patient preferences into clinical practice. This ninth installment in the Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology Series is a practical overview of health outcome valuation, as well as the integration of both quality and quantity of life into standardized metrics for health research, program planning, and resource allocation. Tools for measuring preference-based health states, measures of effectiveness, and the application of metrics in economic evaluations are discussed.
WhiteheadSJAliS. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5-21.
3.
FeenyDKrahnMProsserLASalomonJA. Valuing health outcomes. In: Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. 2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press; 2016.
4.
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Health-Related Quality of Life and Well-Being. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Service; 2010.
5.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL). 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/index.htm. Accessed October 31, 2017.
6.
MorimotoTFukuiT. Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: review and reference for health care professionals. J Epidemiol. 2002;12:160-178.
7.
NeumannPJGoldieSJWeinsteinMC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:587-611.
8.
PetrouSHendersonJ. Preference-based approaches to measuring the benefits of perinatal care. Birth. 2003;30:217-226.
9.
VersteeghMMLeunisAUyl-de GrootCAStolkEA. Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden?Value Health. 2012;15:504-513.
10.
CutlerDMBemdtER. Medical Care Output and Productivity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2001.
11.
GoldMRSiegelJERussellLBWeinsteinMC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
12.
ArnoldDGirlingAStevensALilfordR. Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. BMJ. 2009;339:b2688.
13.
HuninkMGMWeinsteinMCWittenbergEet al. Decision Making in Health and Medicine: Integrating Evidence and Values. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
14.
WeinsteinMCTorranceGMcGuireA. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12(suppl 1):S5-S9.
15.
World Health Organization, WHO International Working Group for Drug Statistics Methodology, WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Utilization Research and Clinical Pharmacological Services. Introduction to Drug Utilization Research. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003.
16.
BrazierJDeverillMGreenCHarperRBoothA. A review of the use of health status measures in economics evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:1-164.
17.
BrauerCARosenABGreenbergDNeumannPJ. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health. 2006;9:213-218.
18.
HellingerFJ. Expected utility theory and risky choices with health outcomes. Med Care. 1989;27:273-279.
19.
Von NeumannJMorgensternO. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1944.
20.
KahnemanDTverskyA. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47:263-292.
21.
HarbaughWTKrauseKVesterlundL. The fourfold pattern of risk attitudes in choice and pricing tasks. Econ J. 2009;120:595-611.
22.
Whately-SmithCWatkinsCMannHFletcherCDucournauP. Utility values in health technology assessments: a statistician’s perspective. Pharm Stat. 2014;13:184-195.
23.
BaldwinSGodfreyCPropperC. Quality of Life: Perspectives and Policies. London: Routledge; 2002.
24.
McNeilBJWeichselbaumRPaukerSG. Speech and survival: tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1981;305:982-987.
25.
ToshJBrazierJEvansPLongworthL. A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. 2012;15:118-127.
26.
DolanPTsuchiyaA. The person trade-off method and the transitivity principle: an example from preferences over age weighting. Health Econ. 2003;12:505-510.
27.
GandjourA. Theoretical foundation of patient v. population preferences in calculating QALYs. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:E57-E63.
28.
NordEDanielsNKamletM. QALYs: some challenges. Value Health. 2009;12(suppl 1):S10-S15.
29.
SandersGDNeumannPJBasuAet al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 2016;316:1093-1103.
BadiaXRosetMHerdmanMKindP. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:7-16.
32.
JohnsonJALuoNShawJWKindPCoonsSJ. Valuations of EQ-5D health states: are the United States and United Kingdom different?Med Care. 2005;43:221-228.
33.
TsuchiyaAIkedaSIkegamiNet al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002;11:341-353.
34.
JoMWYunSCLeeSI. Estimating quality weights for EQ-5D health states with the time trade-off method in South Korea. Value Health. 2008;11:1186-1189.
35.
LiuGGWuHLiMGaoCLuoN. Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value Health. 2014;17:597-604.
36.
SunSChenJKindPXuLZhangYBurstromK. Experience-based VAS values for EQ-5D-3L health states in a national general population health survey in China. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:693-703.
37.
HuangICWillkeRJAtkinsonMJLenderkingWRFrangakisCWuAW. US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: does choice of preference weights make a difference?Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1065-1072.
ZhuoLXuLYeJet al. Time trade-off value set for EQ-5D-3L based on a nationally representative Chinese population survey. Value Health. In press.
40.
FanshelSBushJW. A health status index and its application to health services outcomes. Oper Res. 1970;18:1021-1066.
41.
TorranceGWThomasWHSackettDL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res. 1972;7:118-133.
42.
WeinsteinMCStasonWB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977;296:716-721.
43.
RaiffaH. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices Under Uncertainty. New York, NY: Random House; 1968.
44.
WuG. The strengths and limitations of expected utility theory. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:9-10, discussion 14.
45.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London, UK: NICE; 2013.
46.
TorranceGWFeenyD. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5:559-575.
47.
DolanP. A note on QALYs versus HYEs: health states versus health profiles. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:1220-1224.
48.
RichardsonJHallJSalkeldG. The measurement of utility in multiphase health states. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12:151-162.
49.
PliskinJSShepardDSWeinsteinMC. Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Res. 1980;28:206-224.
50.
WeinsteinMCFinebergHVElsteinASet al. Clinical Decision Analysis. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders; 1980.
51.
MehrezAGafniA. The healthy-years equivalents: how to measure them using the standard gamble approach. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:140-146.
52.
BleichrodtH. QALYs and HYEs (healthy year equivalents): under what conditions are they equivalent?J Health Econ. 1995;14:17-37.
53.
MehrezAGafniA. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making. 1989;9:142-149.
54.
HauberAB. Healthy-years equivalent: wounded but not yet dead. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009;9:265-269.
55.
TowersISpencerABrazierJ. Healthy year equivalents versus quality-adjusted life years: the debate continues. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005;5:245-254.
56.
Fox-RushbyJAHansonK. Calculating and presenting disability adjusted life years (DALYs) in cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2001;16:326-331.
57.
World Health Organization. Making Choices in Health: WHO Guide to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003.
58.
MurrayCJLLopezAD. The Global Burden of Disease: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability From Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1996.
59.
MurrayCJLLopezAD. Global Health Statistics: A Compendium of Incidence, Prevalence and Mortality Estimates for Over 200 Conditions. 2nd ed.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1996.
60.
GoldMRMuennigP. Measure-dependent variation in burden of disease estimates: implications for policy. Med Care. 2002;40:260-266.
61.
FrybackDGDasbachEJKleinRet al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:89-102.
62.
NeumannPJAndersonJEPanzerADet al. Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures. Gates Open Res. 2018;2:5.
63.
BasuAMeltzerD. Implications of spillover effects within the family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 2005;24:751-773.
64.
BrouwerWB. Too important to ignore: informal caregivers and other significant others. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:39-41.
65.
KnappM. Economic outcomes and levers: impacts for individuals and society. Int Psychogeriatr. 2007;19:483-495.
66.
SungLGreenbergMLDoyleJJet al. Construct validation of the Health Utilities Index and the Child Health Questionnaire in children undergoing cancer chemotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:1185-1190.
67.
TorranceGWFeenyDHFurlongWJBarrRDZhangYWangQ. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care. 1996;34:702-722.
68.
HorsmanJFurlongWFeenyDTorranceG. The Health Utilities Index (HUI): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:54.
69.
StevensK. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:1105-1113.
70.
PageLAThomsonWMMarshmanZStevensKJ. The potential of the Child Health Utility 9D Index as an outcome measure for child dental health. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:90.
71.
ThorringtonDEamesK. Measuring health utilities in children and adolescents: a systematic review of the literature. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0135672.
72.
BhattacharyyaN. Trends in otolaryngologic utilization of computed tomography for sinonasal disorders. Laryngoscope. 2013;123:1837-1839.
73.
BalakrishnanKEdwardsTCPerkinsJA. Functional and symptom impacts of pediatric head and neck lymphatic malformations: developing a patient-derived instrument. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;147:925-931.
74.
MahlichJDilokthornsakulPSruamsiriRChaiyakunaprukN. Cultural beliefs, utility values, and health technology assessment. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018;16:19.
75.
BarberBMOdeanT. Boys will be boys: gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Q J Econ. 2001;116:261-292.
76.
ObaidiLAMahlichJ. A potential gender bias in assessing quality of life—a standard gamble experiment among university students. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;7:227-233.
77.
HofstedeGH. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001.
FrewerLJSalterBLambertN. Understanding patients’ preferences for treatment: the need for innovative methodologies. Qual Health Care. 2001;10(suppl 1):i50-i54.
MarseilleELarsonBKaziDSKahnJGRosenS. Thresholds for the cost-effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93:118-124.
82.
UbelPAHirthRAChernewMEFendrickAM. What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation?Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1637-1641.
83.
AndersonJLHeidenreichPABarnettPGet al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures and Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2304-2322.
84.
SwanIRGuyFHAkeroydMA. Health-related quality of life before and after management in adults referred to otolaryngology: a prospective national study. Clin Otolaryngol. 2012;37:35-43.
85.
WitsellDLDolorRJBolteJMStinnettSS. Exploring health-related quality of life in patients with diseases of the ear, nose, and throat: a multicenter observational study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;125:288-298.
86.
SolerZMWittenbergESchlosserRJMaceJCSmithTL. Health state utility values in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope. 2011;121:2672-2678.
87.
BrazierJRobertsJDeverillM. The estimation of preference-based measures of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271-29.
88.
SmithTL. The 2017 13th annual David W. Kennedy, MD, lecture: the evolution of outcomes in sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis: past, present, and future. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2017;7:1121-1126.
89.
Sahlstrand-JohnsonPHopkinsCOhlssonBAhlner-ElmqvistM. The effect of endoscopic sinus surgery on quality of life and absenteeism in patients with chronic rhinosinuitis—a multi-centre study. Rhinology. 2017;55:251-261.
90.
RudmikLSolerZMMaceJCDeCondeASSchlosserRJSmithTL. Using preoperative SNOT-22 score to inform patient decision for endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope. 2015;125:1517-1522.
91.
SmithTLMendolia-LoffredoSLoehrlTASparapaniRLaudPWNattingerAB. Predictive factors and outcomes in endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:2199-2205.
92.
ChisolmTHJohnsonCEDanhauerJLet al. A systematic review of health-related quality of life and hearing aids: final report of the American Academy of Audiology Task Force on the Health-Related Quality of Life Benefits of Amplification in Adults. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007;18:151-183.
93.
GruttersJPJooreMAvan der HorstFVerschuureHDreschlerWAAnteunisLJ. Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1439-1449.
94.
Quentin SummerfieldABartonGRTonerJet al. Self-reported benefits from successive bilateral cochlear implantation in post-lingually deafened adults: randomised controlled trial. Int J Audiol. 2006;45(suppl 1):S99-S107.
95.
JonesELundVJHowardDJGreenbergMPMcCarthyM. Quality of life of patients treated surgically for head and neck cancer. J Laryngol Otol. 1992;106:238-242.
96.
DeleyiannisFWWeymullerEAJrColtreraMD. Quality of life of disease-free survivors of advanced (stage III or IV) oropharyngeal cancer. Head Neck. 1997;19:466-473.
97.
HammerlidEBjordalKAhlner-ElmqvistMet al. Prospective, longitudinal quality-of-life study of patients with head and neck cancer: a feasibility study including the EORTC QLQ-C30. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;116:666-673.
98.
HammerlidEMerckeCSullivanMWestinT. A prospective quality of life study of patients with oral or pharyngeal carcinoma treated with external beam irradiation with or without brachytherapy. Oral Oncol. 1997;33:189-196.
99.
HammerlidEWirbladBSandinCet al. Malnutrition and food intake in relation to quality of life in head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck. 1998;20:540-548.
100.
HammerlidEMerckeCSullivanMWestinT. A prospective quality of life study of patients with laryngeal carcinoma by tumor stage and different radiation therapy schedules. Laryngoscope. 1998;108:747-759.
101.
De BoerMFMcCormickLKPruynJFRyckmanRMvan den BorneBW. Physical and psychosocial correlates of head and neck cancer: a review of the literature. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;120:427-436.
102.
BjordalKHammerlidEAhlner-ElmqvistMet al. Quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-H&N35. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1008-1019.
103.
de GraeffAde LeeuwRJRosWJet al. A prospective study on quality of life of laryngeal cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Head Neck. 1999;21:291-296.
104.
de GraeffAde LeeuwJRRosWJHordijkGJBlijhamGHWinnubstJA. A prospective study on quality of life of patients with cancer of the oral cavity or oropharynx treated with surgery with or without radiotherapy. Oral Oncol. 1999;35:27-32.
105.
DeleyiannisFWWeymullerEAJrColtreraMDFutranN. Quality of life after laryngectomy: are functional disabilities important?Head Neck. 1999;21:319-324.
106.
ListMASistonAHarafDet al. Quality of life and performance in advanced head and neck cancer patients on concomitant chemoradiotherapy: a prospective examination. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1020-1028.
107.
BjordalKAhlner-ElmqvistMHammerlidEet al. A prospective study of quality of life in head and neck cancer patients, part II: longitudinal data. Laryngoscope. 2001;111:1440-1452.
108.
HammerlidEBjordalKAhlner-ElmqvistMet al. A prospective study of quality of life in head and neck cancer patients, part I: at diagnosis. Laryngoscope. 2001;111:669-680.
109.
HammerlidESilanderEHornestamLSullivanM. Health-related quality of life three years after diagnosis of head and neck cancer—a longitudinal study. Head Neck. 2001;23:113-125.
110.
HammerlidETaftC. Health-related quality of life in long-term head and neck cancer survivors: a comparison with general population norms. Br J Cancer. 2001;84:149-156.
111.
FunkGFKarnellLHDawsonCJet al. Baseline and post-treatment assessment of the general health status of head and neck cancer patients compared with United States population norms. Head Neck. 1997;19:675-683.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
