To review the use of measures of health status in the assessment of benefits in economic evaluation, whether or not the measures were designed for this purpose.
Methods:
The review was based on a systematic search of the literature. It provides a comprehensive assessment of the evidence where it exists and a balanced overview of opinion otherwise.
Results:
Over 3000 papers were identified, of which 632 were found to be relevant. The review provides a set of recommendations. These include: a checklist of questions for selecting a measure for use in economic evaluation; a list of circumstances in which non-preference-based measures can be used; and recommendations surrounding the use of health state valuation techniques and multi-attribute utility scales.
Conclusion:
These recommendations should help to identify poor economic evaluations and hence guard against inefficient conclusions being drawn regarding the provision of health services.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrazierJEDeverillMGreenCHarperRBoothA.A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment1999; 3 (9)
2.
WareJESnowKKKolinskiMGandeckB.SF-36 Health Survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993
3.
DrummondMFStoddartGLTorranceGW.Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1987
4.
TorranceGW.Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: A review. Journal of Health Economics1986; 5: 1–30
5.
DrummondMF.Economic analysis alongside controlled trials. London: Department of Health, 1994
6.
LoomesGMcKenzieL.The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Social Science and Medicine1989; 28: 299–308
7.
GafniABirchS.Preferences for outcomes in economic evaluation: an economic approach to addressing economic problems. Social Science and Medicine1995; 40: 767–776
8.
FrobergDGKaneRL.Methodology for measuring health-state preferences — II: Scaling methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology1989; 42: 459–471
9.
KaplanRMAndersonJP.A general health policy model: update and application. Health Services Research1988; 23: 203–235
10.
KindPRosserRWilliamsA.Valuation of quality of life: some psychometric evidence. In: Jones-LeeMW, eds. The value of life and safety. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1982
11.
TorranceGWFurlongWFeenyDBoyleM.Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics1995; 7: 503–520
12.
DolanPGudexCKindPWilliamsA.A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Discussion paper 138, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1995
13.
SintonenH.The 15D measure of HRQoL: reliability, validity, and the sensitivity of it's health state descriptive system. NCFPE working paper 41, Monash University/The University of Melbourne, 1994
14.
DeverillMBrazierJGreenCBoothA.The use of QALY measures and non-QALY measures of health related quality of life: assessing the state of the art. PharmacoEconomics1998; 13: 411–420
15.
StreinerDLNormanGR.Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989
16.
WilliamsA.Measuring functioning and well-being, by Stewart and Ware [review]. Health Economics1992; 1: 255–258
17.
DonaldsonCGerardK.Economics of health care financing: the visible hand. London: Macmillan, 1993
18.
WilliamsA.The role of the Euroqol instrument in QALY calculations. Discussion paper 130, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1995
19.
RichardsonJ.Cost-utility analysis — what should be measured. Social Science and Medicine1994; 39: 7–21
20.
NordERichardsonJMacarounds-KichnammK.Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states: evidence on the validity of four health-state instruments using Norwegian and Australian surveys. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care1993; 9: 463–478
21.
EuroQol Group. EuroQol — a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality-of-life. Health Policy1990; 16: 199–208
BleichrodtHJohannessonM.An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Medical Decision Making1997; 17: 208–216
24.
SchoemakerPJH.The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature1982; 20: 529–563
25.
RobinsonADolanPWilliamsA.Valuing health states using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers?Social Science and Medicine1997; 45: 1289–1297
26.
BrazierJEUsherwoodTPHarperRJonesNMBThomasK.Deriving a preference based single index measure for health from the SF-36. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology1998; 51: 1115–1129
27.
HawthorneGRichardsonJOsborneRMcNeilH.The Australian Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument. Monash University working paper 66, 1997
28.
Ministry of Health (Ontario). Ontario guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceutical products. Toronto: Ministry of Health, 1994
29.
Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Service. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on the submission to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1992
30.
Department of Health and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals [press release]. London: Department of Health, 1994
