Literature DB >> 19019518

A note on the nature of utility in time and health and implications for cost utility analysis.

Ken J Buckingham1, Nancy Joy Devlin.   

Abstract

Time Trade-Off (TTO) valuations of health are widely used in economic evaluation of health care. Current approaches to eliciting TTO values, and their use in economic evaluation, rest on specific assumptions about the way utility relates to time and health. Both the assumptions themselves and evidence of violations of them are discussed in the literature - yet the issues appear not to be widely appreciated by those using and applying TTO in economic evaluation. This paper adds to that literature by demonstrating both the requirements of TTO and violations of these assumptions in terms of the underlying indifference curve maps and utility functions. The advantage of this approach is that it demonstrates very clearly a number of fundamental problems for the way TTO values are currently elicited and used in cost utility analysis. In essence, it is extremely unwise to assume that the current 'tariffs' of TTO values, such as those widely used in cost utility analysis to inform health sector decisions in many countries can be applied irrespective of the duration of the health states to which they are assigned. The estimates of QALYs that result will, quite often, simply be wrong. We conclude by pointing to a number of possible solutions.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19019518     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  6 in total

Review 1.  Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations.

Authors:  Martina Garau; Koonal K Shah; Anne R Mason; Qing Wang; Adrian Towse; Michael F Drummond
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Validation of the underlying assumptions of the quality-adjusted life-years outcome: results from the ECHOUTCOME European project.

Authors:  Ariel Beresniak; Antonieta Medina-Lara; Jean Paul Auray; Alain De Wever; Jean-Claude Praet; Rosanna Tarricone; Aleksandra Torbica; Danielle Dupont; Michel Lamure; Gerard Duru
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Valuing EQ-5D-Y: the current state of play.

Authors:  N Devlin; T Pan; S Kreimeier; J Verstraete; E Stolk; K Rand; M Herdman
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 3.077

4.  The Danish EQ-5D-5L Value Set: A Hybrid Model Using cTTO and DCE Data.

Authors:  Cathrine Elgaard Jensen; Sabrina Storgaard Sørensen; Claire Gudex; Morten Berg Jensen; Kjeld Møller Pedersen; Lars Holger Ehlers
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 2.561

5.  Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: does it make any difference?

Authors:  Federico Augustovski; Lucila Rey-Ares; Vilma Irazola; Mark Oppe; Nancy J Devlin
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-07

6.  A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions.

Authors:  Nancy J Devlin; Koonal K Shah; Brendan J Mulhern; Krystallia Pantiri; Ben van Hout
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2018-07-20
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.