Literature DB >> 10335750

Associations between health status and utilities implications for policy.

L A Lenert1, J R Treadwell, C E Schwartz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: If shape of a person's utility function is associated with his health status, as is predicted by Prospect Theory, the use of utilities from the healthy could result in 'de facto' discrimination against the sick.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if patients' utilities for hypothetical states and for their current health were associated with their health status.
DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of the health and values of patients with depressive illnesses.
SETTING: Patients from three large primary care practices with various medical illnesses complicated by symptoms of depression. MEASURES: Short-Form 12 health status measurements, standard gamble, and visual analog scale preference measurements for patients' current health and for three hypothetical states.
RESULTS: One hundred and forty nine patients enrolled in the study and 139 patients completed the survey. Utilities for the best and worst states were similar across different levels of health status; however, standard gamble utilities for intermediate health states were higher for patients in poorer health than patients in better health (P = 0.019,) suggesting utility functions with radically different shapes. Utilities for patients' current health were also associated with their health status. Patients in poor health tended to overvalue their current health relative to the most similar hypothetical state; whereas, patients in good health tended undervalue their current health state (P = 0.036).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with depressive illnesses, there were significant interactions between health and values, that were consistent with the predictions of Prospect Theory, and that could result in systematic under valuation of the health effects of treatments that primarily benefit more severely patients ill.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10335750     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199905000-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  17 in total

1.  Clustering and the design of preference-assessment surveys in healthcare.

Authors:  A Lin; L A Lenert; M A Hlatky; K M McDonald; R A Olshen; J Hornberger
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  The stability of utility scores: test-retest reliability and the interpretation of utility scores in elective total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  D Feeny; C M Blanchard; J L Mahon; R Bourne; C Rorabeck; L Stitt; S Webster-Bogaert
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Using the effect size to model change in preference values from descriptive health status.

Authors:  Kristy Sanderson; Gavin Andrews; Justine Corry; Helen Lapsley
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Sustainability of behavioral interventions: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Paul M Brown; Linda D Cameron; Steven Ramondt
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2015-06

5.  Differences in EQ-5D-3L health state valuations among patients with musculoskeletal diseases, health care professionals and healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Anja Schwalm; You-Shan Feng; Jörn Moock; Thomas Kohlmann
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-10-05

6.  Does diabetes have an impact on health-state utility? a study of Asians in Singapore.

Authors:  P Wang; E S Tai; J Thumboo; Hubertus J M Vrijhoef; Nan Luo
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  The reliability and internal consistency of an Internet-capable computer program for measuring utilities.

Authors:  L A Lenert
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public.

Authors:  Peter A Ubel; George Loewenstein; Christopher Jepson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Influence of explanatory and confounding variables on HRQoL after controlling for measurement bias and response shift in measurement.

Authors:  Pranav K Gandhi; L Douglas Ried; Carole L Kimberlin; Teresa L Kauf; I-Chan Huang
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.217

10.  How bad is depression? Preference score estimates from depressed patients and the general population.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Pyne; John C Fortney; Shanti Tripathi; David Feeny; Peter Ubel; John Brazier
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-04-21       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.