Literature DB >> 27912142

How do individuals value health states? A qualitative investigation.

M Karimi1, J Brazier2, S Paisley2.   

Abstract

Despite the importance of health state values in informing resource allocation in health care, there is arguably little known about how individuals value health. Previous studies have shown that a variety of non-health factors and beliefs are important in valuing health, but there is less evidence in the literature about how individuals' beliefs affect their preferences or what role non-health factors play in the process of forming preferences. This study investigated the thought processes of 21 U.K. based participants in March 2013 who valued health states using semi-structured interviews and a think-aloud protocol, with the aim to better understand the relationship between health states, the individual's underlying beliefs, and the individual's preferences. Participants followed several stages in valuing health. First, participants interpreted the health states more concretely, relying on their imagination and their experience of ill health. Participants judged how the concrete health problems combined with their personal interests, circumstances, and environment would affect them personally. Ultimately, participants valued health by estimating and weighing the non-health consequences of the health states. Six consequences were most frequently mentioned: activities, enjoyment, independence, relationships, dignity, and avoiding being a burden. At each stage participants encountered difficulties and expressed concerns. The findings have implications for methods of describing health, for example, whether the focus should be on health or a broader notion of well-being and capability. This is because the consequences are similar to the domains of broader measures such as the ICECAP measures for adults and older people, and the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. The findings suggest the need for testing whether individuals are informed about the health states they are valuing. Participants valued health by estimating the non-health consequences of health states and these estimates relied on individuals' beliefs about the interaction of the health state and their personal and social circumstances.
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Discrete choice experiment; EQ-5D; Health state valuation; Preferences; Qualitative methods; Think-aloud; Time trade off; United Kingdom

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27912142     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  10 in total

1.  Incorporating Quantitative Patient Preference Data into Healthcare Decision Making Processes: Is HTA Falling Behind?

Authors:  David John Mott
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  'Like holding the axe on who should live or not': adolescents' and adults' perceptions of valuing children's health states using a standardised valuation protocol for the EQ-5D-Y-3L.

Authors:  Mimmi Åström; Helen Conte; Jenny Berg; Kristina Burström
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 3.440

3.  Are preferences over health states informed?

Authors:  M Karimi; J Brazier; S Paisley
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 3.186

4.  Health-related quality of life and well-being health state values among Dutch oldest old.

Authors:  Riaan Botes; Karin M Vermeulen; Anthonie M Gerber; Adelita V Ranchor; Erik Buskens
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 2.711

5.  Impact of Including Carer Information in Time Trade-Off Tasks: Results from a Pilot Study.

Authors:  David J Mott; Iain Leslie; Koonal Shah; Jennifer Rowell; Nicolas Scheuer
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2021-05-09

6.  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

7.  A new method for valuing health: directly eliciting personal utility functions.

Authors:  Nancy J Devlin; Koonal K Shah; Brendan J Mulhern; Krystallia Pantiri; Ben van Hout
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2018-07-20

8.  Reasoning in the valuation of health-related quality of life: A qualitative content analysis of deliberations in a pilot study.

Authors:  Fabia Gansen; Julian Klinger
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Hybrid Methodology to Improve Health Status Utility Values Derivation Using EQ-5D-5L and Advanced Multi-Criteria Techniques.

Authors:  Johanna Vásquez; Sergio Botero
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-02-22       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  Comparison of online and face-to-face valuation of the EQ-5D-5L using composite time trade-off.

Authors:  Ruixuan Jiang; James Shaw; Axel Mühlbacher; Todd A Lee; Surrey Walton; Thomas Kohlmann; Richard Norman; A Simon Pickard
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-11-28       Impact factor: 4.147

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.