Literature DB >> 23990389

A person trade-off study to estimate age-related weights for health gains in economic evaluation.

Stavros Petrou1, Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala, Angela Robinson, Rachel Baker.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An increasing body of literature is exploring whether the age of the recipient of health care should be a criterion in how health care resources are allocated. The existing literature is constrained both by the relatively small number of age comparison groups within preference-elicitation studies, and by a paucity of methodological robustness tests for order and framing effects and the reliability and transitivity of preferences that would strengthen confidence in the results. This paper reports the results of a study aimed at estimating granulated age-related weights for health gains across the age spectrum that can potentially inform health care decision-making.
METHODS: A sample of 2,500 participants recruited from the health care consumer panels of a social research company completed a person trade-off (or 'matching') study designed to estimate age-related weights for 5- and 10-year life extensions. The results are presented in terms of matrices for alternative age comparisons across the age spectrum.
RESULTS: The results revealed a general, although not invariable, tendency to give more weight to health gains, expressed in terms of life extensions, in younger age groups. In over 85% of age comparisons, the person trade-off exercises revealed a preference for life extensions by the younger of the two age groups that were compared. This pattern held regardless of the method of aggregating responses across study participants. Moreover, the relative weight placed on life extensions by the younger of the two age groups was generally, although not invariably, found to increase as the age difference between the comparator age groups increased. Further analyses revealed that the highest mean relative weight placed on life extensions was estimated for 30-year-olds when the ratio of means method was used to aggregate person trade-off responses across study participants. The highest mean relative weight placed on life extensions was estimated for 10-year-olds for 5-year life extensions and for 30-year-olds for 10-year life extensions, when the median of individual ratios method was used to aggregate person trade-off responses across study participants. Methodological tests framed around alternative referents in the person trade-off questions and the stability of preferences had no discernible effects on the study results.
CONCLUSION: This study has produced new evidence on age-related weights for health gains that can potentially inform health care decision-making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23990389     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0085-y

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


  34 in total

1.  The social value of health programmes: is age a relevant factor?

Authors:  E Rodríguez; J L Pinto
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Exploring social welfare functions and violation of monotonicity: an example from inequalities in health.

Authors:  Ignacio Abasolo; Aki Tsuchiya
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Investigating the social value of health changes.

Authors:  Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 4.  Variability of cost-effectiveness estimates for pharmaceuticals in Western Europe: lessons for inferring generalizability.

Authors:  Marco Barbieri; Michael Drummond; Richard Willke; Jeremy Chancellor; Bruno Jolain; Adrian Towse
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  Community values and preferences in transplantation organ allocation decisions.

Authors:  C J Browning; S A Thomas
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care.

Authors:  E Nord
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 2.980

7.  The utility of health at different stages in life: a quantitative approach.

Authors:  J J Busschbach; D J Hessing; F T de Charro
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  Exploring the role of order effects in person trade-off elicitations.

Authors:  Peter A Ubel; Jeff Richardson; Jonathan Baron
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.980

9.  The time trade-off method: results from a general population study.

Authors:  P Dolan; C Gudex; P Kind; A Williams
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1996 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  Searching for a threshold, not setting one: the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

Authors:  Anthony Culyer; Christopher McCabe; Andrew Briggs; Karl Claxton; Martin Buxton; Ron Akehurst; Mark Sculpher; John Brazier
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2007-01
View more
  4 in total

1.  Prevalence and Losses in Quality-Adjusted Life Years of Child Health Conditions: A Burden of Disease Analysis.

Authors:  Benjamin M Craig; John D Hartman; Michelle A Owens; Derek S Brown
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2016-04

2.  Methodological challenges surrounding QALY estimation for paediatric economic evaluation.

Authors:  Stavros Petrou
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2022-03-03

3.  Delay discounting of different outcomes: Review and theory.

Authors:  Amy L Odum; Ryan J Becker; Jeremy M Haynes; Ann Galizio; Charles C J Frye; Haylee Downey; Jonathan E Friedel; D M Perez
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2020-03-08       Impact factor: 2.215

4.  The views of the general public on prioritising vaccination programmes against childhood diseases: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Gemma Lasseter; Hareth Al-Janabi; Caroline L Trotter; Fran E Carroll; Hannah Christensen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.