The objectives of this study were to assess health state utilities in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease with heartburn and to analyze if severity and annual frequency of heartburn can predict utilities. Atotal of 1011 patients in Germany and Sweden participated in telephone interviews, where utilities were assessed using the rating scale (RS), EQ-5D, time trade-off (TTO) and standard gamble (SG) instruments. The average RS, EQ-5D, TTO, and SG utilities were 0.69, 0.70, 0.88, and 0.89, respectively. Linear regression analyses showed that the EQ-5D and RS utilities were negativelyand significantly related to the severity and frequency of heartburn. The EQ-5D and RS results indicate that patients with heartburn assign their health states substantial disutility and that it is feasible to estimate regression equations to predict utilities from heartburn-specific variables. In the TTO and SGanalyses, the impact of heartburnwas in the expected direction but smaller and in general not significant.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Richter JE. Gastroesophageal reflux disease. In: Winawer SJ, editor. Management of Gastrointestinal Diseases. New York: Gower Medical; 1992.
2.
2. Jones RH, Hungin APS, Phillips J, Mills JG. Gastro-esophageal reflux disease in primary care in Europe: clinical presentation and endoscopic findings. Eur J Gen Pract. 1995;1:149–154.
3.
3. Spechler SJ. Epidemiology and natural history of gastrooesophageal reflux disease. Digestion. 1992;51(1 Suppl):24–29.
4.
4. Revicki DA, Wood M, Maton PN, Sorensen S. The impact of gastroesophageal reflux disease on health-related quality of life. AmJ Med. 1998;104:252–258.
5.
5. Havelund T, Lind T, Wiklund I, et al. Quality of life in patients with heartburn but without esophagitis: effects of treatment with omeprazole. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:1782–1789.
6.
6. Dent J, Brun J, Fendrick AM, et al. An evidence-based appraisal of reflux disease management—the Genval Workshop Report. Gut. 1999;44(2 Suppl):S1–S16.
7.
7. Henke CJ, Levin TR, Henning JM, Potter LP. Work loss costs due to peptic ulcer disease and gastroesophageal reflux disease in a health maintenance organization. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:788–792.
8.
8. Wahlqvist P. Symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease, perceived productivity, and health-related quality of life. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(Suppl):S57–S61.
9.
9. Carlsson R, Dent J, Watts R, et al. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in primary care: an international study of different treatment strategies with omeprazole. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1998; 10: 119–124.
10.
10. Richter JE. Long-term management of gastroesophageal reflux disease and its complications. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;92(Suppl): 30S–35S.
11.
11. O’Connor JB, Provenzale D, Brazer S. Economic considerations in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:3356–3364.
12.
12. Sadowski D, Champion M, Goeree R, et al. Health economics of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Can J Gastroenterol. 1997;11(Suppl B):108B–112B.
13.
13. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
14.
14. Heudebert GR, Centor RM, Klapow JC, Marks R, Johnson L, Wilcox CM. What is heartburnworth? A cost-utility analysis of management strategies. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:175–182.
15.
15. Brazier J, DeverillM, Green C, Harper R, BoothA. Areview of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(9).
16.
16. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—II: scaling methods. JClin Epidemiol. 1989;42:459–471.
17.
17. Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:151–165.
18.
18. Johannesson M. Theory and Methods of Economic Evaluation of Health Care. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic; 1996.
19.
19. TorranceGW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. A review. J Health Econ. 1986;5:1–30.
20.
20. Brooks R, EuroQol Group. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72.
21.
21. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5:141–154.
22.
22. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35:1095–1108.
23.
23. Stålhammar N-O. An empirical note on willingness to pay and starting point bias. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:242–247.
24.
24. Kartman B, Stålhammar N-O, JohannessonM. Contingent valuation with an open-ended follow-up question: a test of scope effects. Health Econ. 1997;6:637–639.
26. Econometric Software, Inc. LIMDEP version 7.0. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software; 1998.
27.
27. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Clin Epidemiol. 1978;31:697–704.
28.
28. Dolan P. Valuing health-related quality of life. Issues and controversies. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999;15:119–127.
29.
29. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer B. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med DecisMaking. 2001; 21:37–44.
30.
30. Schoemaker PJH. The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J Econ Lit. 1982;20:529–563.
31.
31. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences—III: population and context effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:585–592.
32.
32. Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson DGL, Borgquist L. The relationship between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Med Decis Making. 1999;19:128–140.
33.
33. Cassileth BR, Lusk EJ, Strouse TB, et al. Psychosocial status in chronic illness. A comparative analysis of six diagnostic groups. N Engl J Med. 1984;311:506–511.
34.
34. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1124–1131.
35.
35. Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgement. Org Behav Hum Perfor. 1971;6:649–744.
36.
36. Lenert LA, Cher DJ, GoldsteinMK, BergenMR, Garber A. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:76–83.
37.
37. Van Wijk EEE, Bosch JL, Hunink MGM. Time-trade-off values and standard-gamble utilities assessed during telephone interviews versus face-to-face interviews. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:400–405.
38.
38. Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. A comparison of health state utilities for dentofacial deformity as derived from patients and members of the general public. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22:335–342.
