OBJECTIVES: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), infections and amputations are associated with high costs of care and loss of health. To evaluate new treatments, both the extra costs incurred and the health utility gained need to be examined. However, evaluations of treatments in diabetes are hampered by the lack of utility values for health states such as DFU. We estimated utility values for health states seen amongst DFU patients. METHODS: We identified 13 unique health states based on presence/type of DFU and amputation. Members of the general public (n=107) received a description of each health state. They were then asked to indicate how undesirable each health state was (using the time trade-off method). Each answer was then transformed to create a value representing the "utility" of the health state, the utility value represented on a 0-1 scale. RESULTS: Valid responses could be obtained from 96 persons. Mean values included: 0.84 (diabetes with no DFU or amputation), 0.75 (uninfected DFU, no amputation), 0.68 (no DFU, previous foot amputation), and 0.63 (uninfected DFU, previous amputation of other foot). The impact of an ulcer depended on amputation status. CONCLUSIONS: Our values correspond with previously published results but are more detailed. In addition, since our values were derived from the general public, economic evaluations that incorporate them will use the generally preferred societal perspective. Therefore, these values are appropriate, practical and sensitive weights to calculate QALYs for cost-effectiveness analyses of foot ulcer treatments.
OBJECTIVES:Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), infections and amputations are associated with high costs of care and loss of health. To evaluate new treatments, both the extra costs incurred and the health utility gained need to be examined. However, evaluations of treatments in diabetes are hampered by the lack of utility values for health states such as DFU. We estimated utility values for health states seen amongst DFU patients. METHODS: We identified 13 unique health states based on presence/type of DFU and amputation. Members of the general public (n=107) received a description of each health state. They were then asked to indicate how undesirable each health state was (using the time trade-off method). Each answer was then transformed to create a value representing the "utility" of the health state, the utility value represented on a 0-1 scale. RESULTS: Valid responses could be obtained from 96 persons. Mean values included: 0.84 (diabetes with no DFU or amputation), 0.75 (uninfected DFU, no amputation), 0.68 (no DFU, previous foot amputation), and 0.63 (uninfected DFU, previous amputation of other foot). The impact of an ulcer depended on amputation status. CONCLUSIONS: Our values correspond with previously published results but are more detailed. In addition, since our values were derived from the general public, economic evaluations that incorporate them will use the generally preferred societal perspective. Therefore, these values are appropriate, practical and sensitive weights to calculate QALYs for cost-effectiveness analyses of foot ulcer treatments.
Authors: Sarah J Whitehead; Véronique L Forest-Bendien; Jean-Louis Richard; Serge Halimi; Georges Ha Van; Paul Trueman Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2010-09-28 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Qinglu Cheng; Peter A Lazzarini; Michelle Gibb; Patrick H Derhy; Ewan M Kinnear; Edward Burn; Nicholas Graves; Rosana E Norman Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Lisa Gould; Peter Abadir; Harold Brem; Marissa Carter; Teresa Conner-Kerr; Jeff Davidson; Luisa DiPietro; Vincent Falanga; Caroline Fife; Sue Gardner; Elizabeth Grice; John Harmon; William R Hazzard; Kevin P High; Pamela Houghton; Nasreen Jacobson; Robert S Kirsner; Elizabeth J Kovacs; David Margolis; Frances McFarland Horne; May J Reed; Dennis H Sullivan; Stephen Thom; Marjana Tomic-Canic; Jeremy Walston; Jo Anne Whitney; John Williams; Susan Zieman; Kenneth Schmader Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Fay Crawford; Francesca M Chappell; James Lewsey; Richard Riley; Neil Hawkins; Donald Nicolson; Robert Heggie; Marie Smith; Margaret Horne; Aparna Amanna; Angela Martin; Saket Gupta; Karen Gray; David Weller; Julie Brittenden; Graham Leese Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Elbert S Huang; Qi Zhang; Sydney E S Brown; Melinda L Drum; David O Meltzer; Marshall H Chin Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Lisa Gould; Peter Abadir; Harold Brem; Marissa Carter; Teresa Conner-Kerr; Jeff Davidson; Luisa DiPietro; Vincent Falanga; Caroline Fife; Sue Gardner; Elizabeth Grice; John Harmon; William R Hazzard; Kevin P High; Pamela Houghton; Nasreen Jacobson; Robert S Kirsner; Elizabeth J Kovacs; David Margolis; Frances McFarland Horne; May J Reed; Dennis H Sullivan; Stephen Thom; Marjana Tomic-Canic; Jeremy Walston; JoAnne Whitney; John Williams; Susan Zieman; Kenneth Schmader Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 3.617