Donna Rowen1, John Brazier1, Aki Tsuchiya1,2, Tracey Young1, Rachel Ibbotson3. 1. Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, UK (DR, JB, AT, TY) 2. Department of Economics, University of Sheffield, UK (AT) 3. Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Sheffield Hallam University, UK (RI)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many descriptions of health used in vignettes and condition-specific measures name the medical condition. This article assesses the impact of referring to the medical condition in the descriptions of health states valued by members of the general population. METHODS: A valuation study was conducted using face-to-face interviews involving the time trade-off valuation technique. All respondents valued essentially the same health states, but for each respondent, the descriptions featured an irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) label, a cancer label, or no label. Random effects generalized least squares regressions were used to estimate the impact of each label and experience of the condition on health state values. DATA: A sample of 241 members of the UK general population each valued 8 states, generating 1910 observations (response rate = 39%, completion rate = 99% for all states). RESULTS: The authors find no significant difference between health state values when the description contains no label or an IBS label. They find that the inclusion of a cancer label in health state descriptions affects health state values and that the impact is dependent on the severity of the state, with a significant reduction in values for more severe health states (up to -0.25 for the worst possible state) but no significant difference for mild states. CONCLUSIONS: A condition label can affect health state values, but this is dependent on the specific condition and severity. The authors recommend avoiding condition labels in health state descriptions (where possible) to ensure that values are not affected by prior knowledge or preconception of the condition that may distort the health state being valued.
BACKGROUND: Many descriptions of health used in vignettes and condition-specific measures name the medical condition. This article assesses the impact of referring to the medical condition in the descriptions of health states valued by members of the general population. METHODS: A valuation study was conducted using face-to-face interviews involving the time trade-off valuation technique. All respondents valued essentially the same health states, but for each respondent, the descriptions featured an irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) label, a cancer label, or no label. Random effects generalized least squares regressions were used to estimate the impact of each label and experience of the condition on health state values. DATA: A sample of 241 members of the UK general population each valued 8 states, generating 1910 observations (response rate = 39%, completion rate = 99% for all states). RESULTS: The authors find no significant difference between health state values when the description contains no label or an IBS label. They find that the inclusion of a cancer label in health state descriptions affects health state values and that the impact is dependent on the severity of the state, with a significant reduction in values for more severe health states (up to -0.25 for the worst possible state) but no significant difference for mild states. CONCLUSIONS: A condition label can affect health state values, but this is dependent on the specific condition and severity. The authors recommend avoiding condition labels in health state descriptions (where possible) to ensure that values are not affected by prior knowledge or preconception of the condition that may distort the health state being valued.
Authors: Helen McTaggart-Cowan; Madeleine T King; Richard Norman; Daniel S J Costa; A Simon Pickard; Rosalie Viney; Stuart J Peacock Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Louis S Matza; Katie D Stewart; Shravanthi R Gandra; Philip R Delio; Brett E Fenster; Evan W Davies; Jessica B Jordan; Mickael Lothgren; David H Feeny Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Evan W Davies; Louis S Matza; Gavin Worth; David H Feeny; Jacqueline Kostelec; Steven Soroka; David Mendelssohn; Philip McFarlane; Vasily Belozeroff Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Donna Rowen; Brendan Mulhern; Sube Banerjee; Rhian Tait; Caroline Watchurst; Sarah C Smith; Tracey A Young; Martin Knapp; John E Brazier Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Joanne Gray; Mabel L S Lie; Madeleine J Murtagh; Gary A Ford; Peter McMeekin; Richard G Thomson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-11-21 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Louis S Matza; Mary K Devine; Virginia Sutton Haynes; Evan W Davies; Jacqueline M Kostelec; Foula Televantou; Jessica B Jordan Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Louis S Matza; Sandhya J Sapra; John F Dillon; Anupama Kalsekar; Evan W Davies; Mary K Devine; Jessica B Jordan; Amanda S Landrian; David H Feeny Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2014-12-07