Skip to main content
Log in

Using the effect size to model change in preference values from descriptive health status

Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives: This pilot study describes a modelling approach to translate group-level changes in health status into changes in preference values, by using the effect size (ES) to summarize group-level improvement. Methods: ESs are the standardized mean difference between treatment groups in standard deviation (SD) units. Vignettes depicting varying severity in SD decrements on the SF-12 mental health summary scale, with corresponding symptom severity profiles, were valued by a convenience sample of general practitioners (n = 42) using the rating scale (RS) and time trade-off methods. Translation factors between ES differences and change in preference value were developed for five mental disorders, such that ES from published meta-analyses could be transformed into predicted changes in preference values. Results: An ES difference in health status was associated with an average 0.171–0.204 difference in preference value using the RS, and 0.104–0.158 using the time trade off. Conclusions: This observed relationship may be particular to the specific versions of the measures employed in the present study. With further development using different raters and preference measures, this approach may expand the evidence base available for modelling preference change for economic analyses from existing data.

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

References

  1. Bell CM, Chapman RH, Stone PW, et al. An off-the-shelf help list: A comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 288–294.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu Rev Public Health 2000; 21: 587–611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sanderson K, Andrews G, Corry J, et al. Reducing the burden of affective disorders: Is evidence-based health care affordable? J Aff Dis 2003; 77: 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Andrews G, Sanderson K, Corry J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of current and optimal treatment for schizophrenia: Evidence-based medicine is affordable. Br J Psychiatry, 2003; 183: 427–435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Issakidis C, Sanderson K, Corry J, et al. Modelling the population cost effectiveness of current and evidence-based optimal treatment for anxiety disorders. Psychol Med 2004; 34: 19–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Patterson TL, Kaplan RM, Jeste DV. Measuring the effect of treatment on quality of life in patients with schizophrenia: Focus on utility-based measures. CNS Drugs1999; 12: 49–64.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Evers SMAA, Van Wijk AS, Ament AJHA. Economic evaluation of mental health care interventions: A review. Health Econ 1997; 6: 161–177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hargreaves WA, Shumway M, Hu T-W, Cuffel B.Cost-Outcome Methods for Mental Health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kamlet MS, Paul N, Greenhouse J, et al. Cost utility analysis of maintenance treatment for recurrent depression. Control Clin Trial 1995; 16: 17–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brazier J, Dixon S. The use of condition-specific outcome measures in economic appraisal. Health Econ 1995; 4: 255–264.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Coast J. Reprocessing data to form QALYs. Br Med J 1992; 305: 87–90.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Paltiel AD, Fuhlbrigge A, Kitch BT, et al. Cost-effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids in adults with mild-tomoderate asthma: Results from the Asthma Policy Model. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001; 108: 39–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21: 271–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chouinard G, Albright PS. Economic and health state utility determinations for schizophrenia patients treated with risperidone or haloperidol. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1997; 17: 298–307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenthal R. Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ray JW, Shadish WR. How interchangeable are different estimators of effect size? J Consult Clin Psychol 1996; 64: 1316–1325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Andrews G, Henderson S, Hall W. Prevalence, comorbidity, disability and service utilisation: Overview of the Australian National Mental Health Survey. Br J Psychiatry 2001; 178: 145–153.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith GR Jr, Manderscheid RW, Flynn LM, Steinwachs DM. Principles of assessment of patient outcomes in mental health care. Psychiatr Serv1997; 48: 1033–1036.

    Google Scholar 

  21. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Diagnostic Criteria for Research. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1993.

  22. Boot B, Hall W, Andrews G. Disability, outcome and casemix in acute psychiatric in-patient units. Br J Psychiatry 1997; 171: 242–246.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD.A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996; 34: 220–233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sanderson K, Andrews G. Prevalence and severity of mental health-related disability and relationship to diagnosis. Psychiatr Serv 2002; 53: 80–86.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Salyers MP, Bosworth HB, Swanson JW, et al. Reliability and validity of the SF-12 health survey among people with severe mental illness. Med Care 2000; 38: 1141–1150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Owen RR, Rost K, Hollenberg J, et al. Effectiveness of care and improvement in quality of life in patients with panic disorder. Eval Rev 1997; 21: 405–416.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Volk RJ, Cantor SB, Steinbauer JR, Cass AR. Alcohol use disorders, consumption patterns, and health-related quality of life of primary care patients. Alcoholism: Clin Exp Res 1997; 21: 899–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chron Dis 1978; 31: 697–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rabin R, Rosser RM, Butler C.Impact of diagnosis on utilities assigned to states of illness. J R Soc Med 1993; 86: 444–448.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sanderson K, Andrews G. Mental disorders and burden of disease: How was disability estimated and is it valid? Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2001; 35: 668–676.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: Do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 329–334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wells KB, Sherbourne CD. Functioning and utility for current health of patients with depression or chronic medical conditions in managed, primary care practices. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999; 56: 897–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: A comparison of methods. J Health Econ 1996; 15: 209–231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Richardson J, Nord E. The importance of perspective in the measurement of quality-adjusted life years. Med DecisMaking 1997; 17: 33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lenert LA, Sherbourne CD, Reyna V. Utility elicitation using single-item questions compared with a computerized interview. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 97–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Simon GE, Revicki DA, Grothaus L, Vonkorff M. SF-36 summary scores-are physical and mental health truly distinct? Med Care1998; 36: 567–572.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Taft C, Karlsson J, Sullivan M. Do SF-36 summary component scores accurately summarize subscale scores? Qual Life Res2001; 10: 395–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nortvedt MW, Riise T, Myhr K-M, Nyland HI. Performance of the SF-36, SF-12, and RAND-36 summary scales in a multiple sclerosis population. Med Care 2000; 38: 1022–1028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zimmerman M, Mattia JI, Posternak MA. Are subjects in pharmacological treatment trials of depression representative of patients in routine clinical practice? Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159: 4569–4573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Andrews G, Slade T, Issakidis C. Deconstructing comorbidity. Br J Psychiatry 2002; 181: 306–314.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multi-attribute preference functions: Health utilities index. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 9: 503–520.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Essink-Bot ML, Stouthard ME, Bonsel GJ. Generalizability of valuations on health states collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Health Econ 1993; 2: 237–246.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Isacson DGL, Borquist L The relationship between health-state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Med Decis Making 1999; 19: 128–140.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Shmueli A.Subjective health status and health values in the general population. Med Decis Making 1999; 19: 122–127.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 477–487.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ormel J, Von Korff M, Van den Brink W, et al. Depression, anxiety and social disability show synchrony of change in primary care patients.AmJ Public Health 1993; 83: 385–390.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, et al. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77: 371–383.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Chouinard G, Jones B, Remington G, et al. A Canadian multicenter placebo-controlled trial of fixed doses of risperidone and haloperidol in the treatment of chronic schizophrenic patients. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1993; 13: 25–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Lonnqvist J, Sintonen H, Syvalahti E, et al. Antidepressant efficacy and quality of life in depression: A double-blind study with moclobemide and fluoxetine. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1994; 89: 363–369.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hatziandreu EJ, Brown RE, Revicki DA, et al. Cost utility of maintenance treatment of recurrent depression with sertraline vs. episodic treatment with dothiepin. Pharmaco economics 1994; 5: 249–268.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Stouthard MEA, Essink-Bot M-L, Bonsel GJ, et al. Disability Weights for Diseases in the Netherlands. Rotterdam: Department of Public Health, Erasmus University, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Revicki DA, Brown RE, Palmer W, et al. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of antidepressant treatment in primary care. Pharmaco economics 1995; 8: 524–540.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Guscott R. Costutility analysis in depression: The McSad utility measure for depression health states. Psychiatr Serv 2000; 51: 1171–1176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bennett KJ, Torrance GW, Boyle MH, et al. Development and testing of a utility measure for major, unipolar depression (McSad). Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 109–120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lenert LA, Treadwell JR, Schwartz CE. Associations between health status and utilities: implications for policy. Med Care 1999; 37: 479–489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Lee TT, Ziegler JK, Sommi R, et al. Comparison of preferences for health outcomes in schizophrenia among stakeholder groups. J Psychiatr Res 2000; 34: 201–210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sanderson, K., Andrews, G., Corry, J. et al. Using the effect size to model change in preference values from descriptive health status. Qual Life Res 13, 1255–1264 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000037482.92757.82

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000037482.92757.82

Navigation