Methods for quality adjustment of life years

https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(92)90211-8Get rights and content

Abstract

Several valuation techniques are in use for quality adjusting life years in cost utility analysis. The paper gives an overview of the variability in results. A close inspection of a number of instruments with respect to their theme, instructions, decision framing and the phrasing of questions make many of the observed differences in results understandable. When judging the validity of the different techniques, three points should be kept in mind. One is that statements about validity should be made with respect to concrete versions rather than broad categories like ‘the rating scale’, ‘time trade-off’ etc. Another point is that a valuation technique that is valid in clinical decision analysis may not be valid in health program evaluation, and vice versa. The third point is that quality weights for life years are empirically more meaningful, in the sense that they are more amenable to empirical testing, if they are interpreted simply as preference weights rather than measures of amounts of well life in the utilitarian tradition. Time trade-off with a moderate time horizon is recommended in clinical decision analysis, while a combination of time trade-off and a variant of person trade-off is recommended in health program evaluation.

References (43)

  • R. Rosser

    Issues of measurement in the design of health indicators: A review

  • H.J. Sutherland et al.

    Measurement of values for states of health with linear analog scales

    Med. Decision Making

    (1983)
  • H. Llewellyn-Thomas

    Describing health states

  • J.L. Read

    Preferences for health outcomes

  • A. Mehrez et al.

    Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory and healthy year equivalents

    Med. Decision Making

    (1989)
  • J. Richardson et al.

    Cost utility analysis: The compatability of measurement techniques and the measurement of utility through time

  • A. Tversky et al.

    The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice

    Science

    (1981)
  • P.J. Schoemaker

    The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations

    J. Econ. Lit.

    (1982)
  • R.M. Kaplan et al.

    Do category rating scales produce biased preference weights for a health index?

    Med. Care

    (1983)
  • M. Mulkay et al.

    Measuring the quality of life

    Sociology

    (1987)
  • C. Bombardier

    Comparison of three preference measurement methodologies in the evaluation of a functional status index

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text