Literature DB >> 21366809

Focusing illusion, adaptation and EQ-5D health state descriptions: the difference between patients and public.

Yvette Peeters1, Thea P M Vliet Vlieland, Anne M Stiggelbout.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients tend to assign higher utilities to health states compared with the general public. Several explanations have been given for this difference including focusing illusion -, caused in part by the sparseness of a health state description such as the EQ-5D -, and adaptation.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether patients and the public differ in which dimensions they find important. Furthermore, we compared whether the dimensions named by patients and the public obtained higher rankings of importance compared with the predefined EQ-5D dimensions. Within each nominated dimension we investigated whether the public used a more negative frame compared with patients. In addition, adaptation was investigated by comparing patients with high levels of adaptation and patients with low levels of adaptation.
DESIGN: Data were collected using semistructured interviews among 124 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and 64 members of the public. Participants indicated which aspects are important to them when they think about their life having rheumatoid arthritis and rated the importance of these aspects and of the EQ-5D dimensions.
RESULTS: In contrast to patients, the public named more often aspects related to sports and mobility, leisure activities and work and framed these aspects negatively. Compared with self-rated dimensions, the public ranked the EQ-5D dimensions as more important whereas patients found both groups of aspects equally important. Patients who showed higher levels of adaptation did not differ significantly from patients with lower levels.
CONCLUSION: The public is focused on life domains that are negatively influenced by the described health state whereas patients are focused on both the positive and negative aspects of their lives.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21366809      PMCID: PMC5060627          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00667.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  25 in total

Review 1.  Statistical methods in epidemiology. v. Towards an understanding of the kappa coefficient.

Authors:  A S Rigby
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2000-05-20       Impact factor: 3.033

2.  EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.980

3.  Understanding differences between self-ratings and population ratings for health in the EuroQOL.

Authors:  Ralph P Insinga; Dennis G Fryback
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  EuroQol: the current state of play.

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

Review 5.  Methodology for measuring health-state preferences--III: Population and context effects.

Authors:  D G Froberg; R L Kane
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?

Authors:  G A De Wit; J J Busschbach; F T De Charro
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Whose preferences count?

Authors:  P Dolan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1999 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  The role of public values in setting health care priorities.

Authors:  D C Hadorn
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Immune neglect: a source of durability bias in affective forecasting.

Authors:  D T Gilbert; E C Pinel; T D Wilson; S J Blumberg; T P Wheatley
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1998-09

10.  Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities.

Authors:  Yvette Peeters; Anne M Stiggelbout
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-09-10       Impact factor: 5.725

View more
  10 in total

1.  Valuation of depression co-occurring with a somatic condition: feasibility of the time trade-off task.

Authors:  Katerina Papageorgiou; Karin M Vermeulen; Fenna R M Leijten; Erik Buskens; Adelita V Ranchor; Maya J Schroevers
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Editorial.

Authors:  Jonathan Tritter
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  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

4.  Do individuals with and without depression value depression differently? And if so, why?

Authors:  Katerina Papageorgiou; Karin M Vermeulen; Maya J Schroevers; Anne M Stiggelbout; Erik Buskens; Paul F M Krabbe; Edwin van den Heuvel; Adelita V Ranchor
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Time trade-off: one methodology, different methods.

Authors:  Arthur E Attema; Yvette Edelaar-Peeters; Matthijs M Versteegh; Elly A Stolk
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-07

6.  Developing a dementia-specific preference--based quality of life measure (AD-5D) in Australia: a valuation study protocol.

Authors:  Tracy A Comans; Kim-Huong Nguyen; Brendan Mulhern; Megan Corlis; Li Li; Alyssa Welch; Susan E Kurrle; Donna Rowen; Wendy Moyle; Sanjeewa Kularatna; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-01-21       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Developing a cerebral palsy-specific preference-based measure for a six-dimensional classification system (CP-6D): protocol for a valuation study.

Authors:  Mina Bahrampour; Richard Norman; Joshua Byrnes; Martin Downes; Paul A Scuffham
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-09-12       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Anticipated adaptation or scale recalibration?

Authors:  Yvette Edelaar-Peeters; Anne M Stiggelbout
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 3.186

9.  Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it.

Authors:  John Brazier; Donna Rowen; Milad Karimi; Tessa Peasgood; Aki Tsuchiya; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-10-11

Review 10.  Are patients accurate forecasters of their emotional response to medical conditions? A scoping review on affective forecasting.

Authors:  G J van den Bosch; R A N Roos; R Otten; Claudi Bockting; Y M Smulders
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-12-06       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.