Eve Wittenberg1, Jeremy W Bray2, Achamyeleh Gebremariam3, Brandon Aden4, Bohdan Nosyk5, Bruce R Schackman4. 1. Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: ewittenb@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Economics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA. 3. CS Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Department of Healthcare Policy & Research and Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 5. BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although co-occurring conditions are common with substance use disorders (SUDs), estimation methods for joint health state utilities have not yet been tested in this context. OBJECTIVES: To compare joint health state utility estimators in SUD to inform economic evaluation. METHODS: We conducted two Internet-based surveys of US adults to collect community perspective standard gamble utilities for SUD and common co-occurring conditions. We evaluated six conditions as they occur individually and four combinations of these as they occur in tandem. We applied joint utility estimators using the six individual conditions' utilities to compare their performance relative to the observed combination states' utilities. We assessed performance with bias (estimated utility minus observed utility) and root mean square error (RMSE). RESULTS: Using 3892 utilities from 1502 respondents, the minimum estimator was statistically unbiased (i.e., the 95% confidence interval included 0) for all combination states that we measured. The maximum estimator was unbiased for two states and the linear index and adjusted decrement estimators were unbiased for one state. The maximum estimator had the smallest RMSE for two combination states (back pain and prescription opioid misuse [0.0004] and injection crack and injection opioid use [0.0007]); the linear index and minimum estimators had the smallest RMSE for one combination state each. The additive and multiplicative estimators had the largest RMSE for all states. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the usefulness of the minimum estimator in this context, and confirm the inadequacy of the additive and multiplicative estimators. Further research is needed to extend these results to other SUD states.
BACKGROUND: Although co-occurring conditions are common with substance use disorders (SUDs), estimation methods for joint health state utilities have not yet been tested in this context. OBJECTIVES: To compare joint health state utility estimators in SUD to inform economic evaluation. METHODS: We conducted two Internet-based surveys of US adults to collect community perspective standard gamble utilities for SUD and common co-occurring conditions. We evaluated six conditions as they occur individually and four combinations of these as they occur in tandem. We applied joint utility estimators using the six individual conditions' utilities to compare their performance relative to the observed combination states' utilities. We assessed performance with bias (estimated utility minus observed utility) and root mean square error (RMSE). RESULTS: Using 3892 utilities from 1502 respondents, the minimum estimator was statistically unbiased (i.e., the 95% confidence interval included 0) for all combination states that we measured. The maximum estimator was unbiased for two states and the linear index and adjusted decrement estimators were unbiased for one state. The maximum estimator had the smallest RMSE for two combination states (back pain and prescription opioid misuse [0.0004] and injection crack and injection opioid use [0.0007]); the linear index and minimum estimators had the smallest RMSE for one combination state each. The additive and multiplicative estimators had the largest RMSE for all states. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the usefulness of the minimum estimator in this context, and confirm the inadequacy of the additive and multiplicative estimators. Further research is needed to extend these results to other SUD states.
Authors: Richard Norman; Madeleine T King; Dushyant Clarke; Rosalie Viney; Paula Cronin; Deborah Street Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-22 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: William Dale; S Pinar Bilir; Joshua Hemmerich; Anirban Basu; Arthur Elstein; David Meltzer Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: M Connock; A Juarez-Garcia; S Jowett; E Frew; Z Liu; R J Taylor; A Fry-Smith; E Day; N Lintzeris; T Roberts; A Burls; R S Taylor Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Zoe Ward; Nyashadzaishe Mafirakureva; Jack Stone; Mary Keevans; Graham Betts-Symonds; Desmond Crowley; Tina McHugh; Gordana Avramovic; John S Lambert; Peter Vickerman Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2021-08-17
Authors: Eve Wittenberg; Carolina Barbosa; Riley Hein; Emma Hudson; Benjamin Thornburg; Jeremy W Bray Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Sarah Gutkind; Bruce R Schackman; Jake R Morgan; Jared A Leff; Linda Agyemang; Sean M Murphy; Matthew J Akiyama; Brianna L Norton; Alain H Litwin; Benjamin P Linas Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 20.999
Authors: Joshua A Barocas; Jake R Morgan; David A Fiellin; Bruce R Schackman; Golnaz Eftekhari Yazdi; Michael D Stein; Kenneth A Freedberg; Benjamin P Linas Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2019-05-10
Authors: Carolina Barbosa; William N Dowd; Simon J Neuwahl; Jürgen Rehm; Sameer Imtiaz; Gary A Zarkin Journal: Addiction Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 7.256
Authors: Bruce R Schackman; Sarah Gutkind; Jake R Morgan; Jared A Leff; Czarina N Behrends; Kevin L Delucchi; Courtney McKnight; David C Perlman; Carmen L Masson; Benjamin P Linas Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 4.852