Skip to main content
Log in

Validity and feasibility of the use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic evaluation

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Usually, generic questionnaires such as the EQ-5D or Health Utility Index (HUI) are used to obtain utility scores for computing QALYs. Sometimes, however, application of these instruments is not possible, or the responsiveness is doubted. An alternative strategy is to attribute utility scores to health states of a condition-specific outcomes measure (CSOM). We explored the validity and feasibility of this strategy. Research design: Our samples determined utility scores for the health states of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) using time tradeoff (TTO). To reduce costs and time, the general population (n = 169) was interviewed in groups. We tested the validity of the group sessions in students. To test the extent of agreement between values obtained using the group and those obtained through individual administration, 63 students were interviewed individually and 54 in groups. Results: The utility scores for the disease-specific health states showed good construct validity. Also, the criterion validity of the adapted TTO was confirmed. Discussion: Disease-specific utility scores can be used in QALY analysis by converting them to a generic scale. Efforts should be undertaken to prevent response spreading. Administrating TTO in groups could reduce the time and costs of TTO administration and render the strategy of determining utilities for condition-specific health states more feasible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brazier J, Dixon S. The use of condition specific outcome measures in economical appraisal. Health Econom 1995; 4(4): 255–264.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW. Measuring health state preferences and utilities: Rating scale, time tradeoff, and standard gamble techniques. In: Spilker B (ed), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials (ch. 27). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hall J, Gerard K, Salkeld G, Richardson J. A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Social Sci Med 1992; 34(9): 993–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kennedy W, Reinharz D, Tessier G, et al. Cost utility of chemotherapy and best supportive care in non-small cell lung cancer. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 8(4): 316–323.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chancellor JVM, Coyle D, Drummond MF. Constructing health state preference values from descriptive quality of life outcomes: Mission impossible? Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 159–168.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, et al. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 1996; 34: 702–722.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Busschbach JJV, McDonnell J, Essink-Bot ML, Hout BAv. Estimating parametric relationships between health descriptions and health valuation with an application to the EuroQol EQ-5D. J Health Econom 1999; 18: 551–571.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, et al. The International Index of erectile function (IIEF): A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997; 49: 822–830.

    Google Scholar 

  9. NIH Consensus Conference. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Impotence. J Amer Med Assoc 1993; 270: 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 1972; 7(2): 118–133.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Plan Sci 1976; 10: 129–136.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brooks R. EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53–72.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Statistics Netherlands. Statistical Yearbook of the Netherlands 1997. Voorburg/Heerlen: Statistics Netherlands, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Goldstein I, Lue T, Padma-Nathan H, et al. Oral Sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. New Engl J Med 1998; 338(20): 1397–1404.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Murray JL, Lopez AD (eds) (1996) The Global Burden of Disease. Summary. The Global Burden of Disease and Injury Series (pages). Cambridge: The Harvard school of Public Health (on behalf of the World Health Organisation and the World Bank), 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Volk RJ, Cantor SB, Spann SJ, et al. Preferences of husbands and wives for prostate cancer screening. Arch Fam Med 1996; 6: 72–76.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Albertsen PC, Jr RFN, Potosky AL. Assessment of patient preferences among men with prostate cancer. J Urol 1998; 159(1): 158–163.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fryback DG, Lawrence WF. Dollars may not buy as many QALYs as we think. A problem with defining quality of life adjustments. Med Decision Making 1997; 17: 276–284.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gold M, Franks P, McCoy KI, Fryback DG. Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses using national measures to create condition specific values. Med Care 1998; 36(6): 778–792.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bleichrodt H, Herrero C, Pinto JL. A proposal to solve the comparability problem in cost-utility analysis, forthcoming.

  21. Stolk EA, Busschbach JJV. A comparison between the euroqol and the health utility index in patients treated for congenital anomalies. HEPAC 2001; 2: 54–59.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Med Decision Making 1997b; 17(2): 208–216.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tsevat J, Dawson NV, Wu AW, et al. Health values of hospitalized patients 80 years or older. J Amer Med Assoc 1998; 279(5): 371–375.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stolk, E.A., Busschbach, J.J. Validity and feasibility of the use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic evaluation. Qual Life Res 12, 363–371 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023453405252

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023453405252

Navigation