Literature DB >> 19757864

The role of patient preferences in cost-effectiveness analysis: a conflict of values?

John E Brazier1, Simon Dixon, Julie Ratcliffe.   

Abstract

This paper reviews the role of patient preferences within the framework of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). CEA typically adopts a system-wide perspective by focusing upon efficiency across groups in the allocation of scarce healthcare resources, whereas treatment decisions are made over individuals. However, patient preferences have been shown to have a direct impact on the outcome of an intervention via psychological factors or indirectly via patient adherence/compliance rates. Patient values may also be in conflict with the results of CEA through the valuation of benefits. CEA relies heavily on the QALY model to reflect individual preferences, although the healthy year equivalent offers an alternative measure that may be better at taking individual preferences into account. However, both measures typically use mean general population or mean patient values and therefore create conflict with individual-level preferences. For CEA to reflect practice, it must take into account the impact of individual patient preferences even where general population preferences are used to value the benefits of interventions. Patient preferences have implications for cost effectiveness through costs and outcomes, and it is important that cost-effectiveness models incorporate these through its structure (e.g. allowing for differing compliance rates) and parameter values, including clinical effectiveness. It will also be necessary to try to predict patient preferences in order to estimate any impact on cost effectiveness through analyses of revealed and stated preference data. It is recognized that policy makers are concerned with making interventions available to patients and not forcing them to consume healthcare. One way of moving towards this would be to adopt a two-part decision process: the identification of the most cost-effective therapy using mean general population values (i.e. the current rule), then also making available those treatments that are cheaper than the most cost-effective therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19757864     DOI: 10.2165/11314840-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  15 in total

1.  On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales.

Authors:  Stephen Birch; Amiram Gafni
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 2.  Treatment of established osteoporosis: a systematic review and cost-utility analysis.

Authors:  J A Kanis; J E Brazier; M Stevenson; N W Calvert; M Lloyd Jones
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.014

3.  To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ-5D valuation set.

Authors:  Jennifer Roberts; Paul Dolan
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 4.  EuroQol: the current state of play.

Authors:  R Brooks
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 2.980

5.  Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states?

Authors:  John Brazier; Ron Akehurst; Alan Brennan; Paul Dolan; Karl Claxton; Chris McCabe; Mark Sculpher; Aki Tsuchyia
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.561

6.  Healthy year equivalents versus quality-adjusted life years: the debate continues.

Authors:  Isabel Towers; Anne Spencer; John Brazier
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.217

7.  An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations.

Authors:  H Bleichrodt; M Johannesson
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1997 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents.

Authors:  A Mehrez; A Gafni
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1989 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states.

Authors:  P Dolan
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 10.  Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making.

Authors:  A Coulter
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  1997-04
View more
  28 in total

1.  Comparison of health state values derived from patients and individuals from the general population.

Authors:  Mihir Gandhi; Ru San Tan; Raymond Ng; Su Pin Choo; Whay Kuang Chia; Chee Keong Toh; Carolyn Lam; Phong Teck Lee; Nang Khaing Zar Latt; Kim Rand-Hendriksen; Yin Bun Cheung; Nan Luo
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  A review of preference-based measures for the assessment of quality of life in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy.

Authors:  Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa; Gang Chen; Elisabeth Huynh; Remo Russo; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-03-22       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Stigma and difficulty accessing medical care in a sample of adults with serious mental illness.

Authors:  Laysha Ostrow; Ron Manderscheid; Ramin Mojtabai
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2014-11

4.  Preference for Immunotherapy with Tablets by People with Allergic Rhinitis.

Authors:  Mike Tankersley; Tonya Winders; Mark Aagren; Henrik Brandi; Mikkel Hasse Pedersen; Anne Sofie Ledgaard Loftager; Mette Bøgelund
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 2.711

Review 5.  Acknowledging patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation : a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Janneke P C Grutters; Mark Sculpher; Andrew H Briggs; Johan L Severens; Math J Candel; James E Stahl; Dirk De Ruysscher; Albert Boer; Bram L T Ramaekers; Manuela A Joore
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Patient and societal value functions for the testing morbidities index.

Authors:  J Shannon Swan; Chung Yin Kong; Janie M Lee; Omosalewa Itauma; Elkan F Halpern; Pablo A Lee; Sergey Vavinskiy; Olubunmi Williams; Emilie S Zoltick; Karen Donelan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Patient Preferences for Pain Management in Advanced Cancer: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  David M Meads; John L O'Dwyer; Claire T Hulme; Phani Chintakayala; Karen Vinall-Collier; Michael I Bennett
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Economic Evaluation in Opioid Modeling: Systematic Review.

Authors:  Elizabeth Beaulieu; Catherine DiGennaro; Erin Stringfellow; Ava Connolly; Ava Hamilton; Ayaz Hyder; Magdalena Cerdá; Katherine M Keyes; Mohammad S Jalali
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2020-10-26       Impact factor: 5.725

9.  Traumeel - an emerging option to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the management of acute musculoskeletal injuries.

Authors:  Christian Schneider
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2011-03-25

10.  Integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions: protocol of the patient-VIP study.

Authors:  Carmen D Dirksen; Cecile Ma Utens; Manuela A Joore; Teus A van Barneveld; Bert Boer; Dunja Hh Dreesens; Hans van Laarhoven; Cees Smit; Anne M Stiggelbout; Trudy van der Weijden
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2013-06-10       Impact factor: 7.327

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.