Literature DB >> 16498700

Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis?

David Parkin1, Nancy Devlin.   

Abstract

This paper critically reviews theoretical and empirical propositions regarding visual analogue scale (VAS) valuations of health states and their use in cost-utility analysis (CUA). A widely repeated assertion in the economic evaluation literature is the inferiority, on theoretical grounds, of VAS valuations. Five common criticisms are: VAS lacks a theoretical foundation; VAS values are not 'choice based'; VAS values are not consistent with utility-under-uncertainty requirements; context and range effects observed in VAS valuation data mean that they cannot even be considered to represent measurable value functions; and when completing a VAS, people are not trying to express values. We address each of these points: the VAS does have a theoretical basis, being entirely consistent with the non-welfarist foundations of QALYs and CUA; the 'choiceless' nature of the VAS is incorrectly judged by stated preference criteria relevant to monetary rather than health state valuations, and VAS valuations do in any case involve an element of choice; because valuations are intended for use in social decision-making, it may be advantageous that VAS values are elicited under conditions of certainty; although there are measurement problems with the VAS, means such as better design and transformations of data can deal with these; and with any method of eliciting values, it is unrealistic to expect people consciously to think in terms of social science constructs such as utilities.Moreover, there are problems, both theoretical and empirical, with alternative methods. Selection of the appropriate valuation method should be based on empirical performance, and in this the VAS has important advantages. We conclude that there are strong grounds for disputing the consensus view against the VAS and challenge those who hold it to deploy more convincing arguments and evidence in favour of alternative methods. However, we identify areas where further research is required to establish and consolidate the potential of the VAS as a valuation method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16498700     DOI: 10.1002/hec.1086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  58 in total

1.  Time trade-off and attitudes toward euthanasia: implications of using 'death' as an anchor in health state valuation.

Authors:  Liv A Augestad; Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Knut Stavem; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  A Norwegian 15D value algorithm: proposing a new procedure to estimate 15D value algorithms.

Authors:  Yvonne Anne Michel; Liv Ariane Augestad; Mathias Barra; Kim Rand
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  How do the EQ-5D, SF-6D and the well-being rating scale compare in patients with ankylosing spondylitis?

Authors:  Annelies Boonen; Désirée van der Heijde; Robert Landewé; Astrid van Tubergen; Herman Mielants; Maxime Dougados; Sjef van der Linden
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 19.103

4.  Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making.

Authors:  Christine M McDonough; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Testing the interval-level measurement property of multi-item visual analogue scales.

Authors:  Paul F M Krabbe; Peep F M Stalmeier; Leida M Lamers; Jan J V Busschbach
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-09-20       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states: development and testing for the German population.

Authors:  Reiner Leidl; Peter Reitmeir
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Classification and valuation of postoperative complications in a randomized trial of open versus laparoscopic ventral herniorrhaphy.

Authors:  H M A Kaafarani; K Hur; M Campasano; D J Reda; K M F Itani
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2010-03-06       Impact factor: 4.739

8.  Utility elicitation study in the UK general public for late-stage chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

Authors:  Keith Tolley; Catherine Goad; Yunni Yi; Penny Maroudas; Amin Haiderali; Gwilym Thompson
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2012-09-01

9.  Initial development of the Temporary Utilities Index: a multiattribute system for classifying the functional health impact of diagnostic testing.

Authors:  J Shannon Swan; Jun Ying; James Stahl; Chung Yin Kong; Beverly Moy; Jessica Roy; Elkan Halpern
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 10.  A review of health-utility data for osteoarthritis: implications for clinical trial-based evaluation.

Authors:  Hirsch S Ruchlin; Ralph P Insinga
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.