Michael Sonntag1, Hans-Helmut König, Alexander Konnopka. 1. Department of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany, mi.sonntag@uke.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review approaches and instruments used to derive utility weights in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) within the field of mental disorders and to identify factors that may have influenced the choice of the approach. METHODS: We searched the databases DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment), and PubMed for CUAs. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations and reported quality-adjusted life-years as the health outcome. Study characteristics and instruments used to estimate utility weights were described and a logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the choice of either the direct (e.g. standard gamble) or the preference-based measure (PBM) approach (e.g. EQ-5D). RESULTS: We identified 227 CUAs with a maximum in 2009, 2010, and 2012. Most CUAs were conducted in depression, dementia, or psychosis, and came from the US or the UK, with the EQ-5D being the most frequently used instrument. The application of the direct approach was significantly associated with depression, psychosis, and model-based studies. The PBM approach was more likely to be used in recent studies, dementia, Europe, and empirical studies. Utility weights used in model-based studies were derived from only a small number of studies. LIMITATIONS: We only searched four databases and did not evaluate the quality of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Direct instruments and PBMs are used to elicit utility weights in CUAs with different frequencies regarding study type, mental disorder, and country.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review approaches and instruments used to derive utility weights in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) within the field of mental disorders and to identify factors that may have influenced the choice of the approach. METHODS: We searched the databases DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment), and PubMed for CUAs. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations and reported quality-adjusted life-years as the health outcome. Study characteristics and instruments used to estimate utility weights were described and a logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the choice of either the direct (e.g. standard gamble) or the preference-based measure (PBM) approach (e.g. EQ-5D). RESULTS: We identified 227 CUAs with a maximum in 2009, 2010, and 2012. Most CUAs were conducted in depression, dementia, or psychosis, and came from the US or the UK, with the EQ-5D being the most frequently used instrument. The application of the direct approach was significantly associated with depression, psychosis, and model-based studies. The PBM approach was more likely to be used in recent studies, dementia, Europe, and empirical studies. Utility weights used in model-based studies were derived from only a small number of studies. LIMITATIONS: We only searched four databases and did not evaluate the quality of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Direct instruments and PBMs are used to elicit utility weights in CUAs with different frequencies regarding study type, mental disorder, and country.
Authors: Carolina Barbosa; Benjamin Taylor; Christine Godfrey; Juergen Rehm; Steve Parrott; Colin Drummond Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Antoni Serrano-Blanco; David Suárez; Alejandra Pinto-Meza; Maria T Peñarrubia; Josep Maria Haro Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Wayne Katon; Joan Russo; Elizabeth H B Lin; Julie Schmittdiel; Paul Ciechanowski; Evette Ludman; Do Peterson; Bessie Young; Michael Von Korff Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2012-05
Authors: Spyros Kolovos; Judith E Bosmans; Johanna M van Dongen; Birre van Esveld; Dorcas Magai; Annemieke van Straten; Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis; Kirsten M van Steenbergen-Weijenburg; Klaas M Huijbregts; Harm van Marwijk; Heleen Riper; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-03-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Cathrine Mihalopoulos; Lidia Engel; Long Khanh-Dao Le; Anne Magnus; Meredith Harris; Mary Lou Chatterton Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-04-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Spyros Kolovos; Judith E Bosmans; Heleen Riper; Karine Chevreul; Veerle M H Coupé; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Pharmacoecon Open Date: 2017-09
Authors: Ishani K Majmudar; Cathrine Mihalopoulos; Bianca Brijnath; Michelle H Lim; Natasha Yvonne Hall; Lidia Engel Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Y N Alfonso; D Bishai; J D Ivanich; V M O'Keefe; J Usher; L R Aldridge; E E Haroz; N Goklish; A Barlow; M Cwik Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2021-08-29