Skip to main content
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
ZOEKEN
MENU 1 2 3 4
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 7/2018

09-04-2018

Health state utility values of high prevalence mental disorders in Australia: results from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing

Auteurs: Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Lidia Engel, Long Khanh-Dao Le, Anne Magnus, Meredith Harris, Mary Lou Chatterton

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 7/2018

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

High prevalence mental disorders including depression, anxiety and substance use disorders are associated with high economic and disease burden. However, there is little information regarding the health state utility values of such disorders according to their clinical severity using comparable instruments across all disorders. This study reports utility values for high prevalence mental disorders using data from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHWB).

Methods

Utility values were derived from the AQoL-4D and analysed by disorder classification (affective only (AD), anxiety-related only (ANX), substance use only (SUB) plus four comorbidity groups), severity level (mild, moderate, severe), symptom recency (reported in the past 30 days), and comorbidity (combination of disorders). The adjusted Wald test was applied to detect statistically significant differences of weighted means and the magnitude of difference between groups was presented as a modified Cohen’s d.

Results

In total, 1526 individuals met criteria for a 12-month mental disorder. The mean utility value was 0.67 (SD = 0.27), with lower utility values associated with higher severity levels and some comorbidities. Utility values for AD, ANX and SUB were 0.64 (SD = 0.25), 0.71 (SD = 0.25) and 0.81 (SD = 0.19), respectively. No differences in utility values were observed between disorders within disorder groups. Utility values were significantly lower among people with recent symptoms (within past 30 days) than those without; when examined by diagnostic group, this pattern held for people with SUB, but not for people with ANX or AD.

Conclusions

Health state utility values of people with high prevalence mental disorders differ significantly by severity level, number of mental health comorbidities and the recency of symptoms, which provide new insights on the burden associated with high prevalence mental disorders in Australia. The derived utility values can be used to populate future economic models.
vorige artikel Do country-specific preference weights matter in the choice of mapping algorithms? The case of mapping the Diabetes-39 onto eight country-specific EQ-5D-5L value sets
volgende artikel People in states worse than dead according to the EQ-5D UK value set: would they rather be dead?
Literatuur
1.
Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2017). Measuring and valuing health benefits fo economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
NICE. (2013). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE.
3.
Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (2008). Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.3). Canberra, ACT: Australian Governmnet - Department of Health and Ageing.
4.
Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Osborne, R. (1999). The assessment of quality of life (AQoL) instrument: A psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 8, 209–224. CrossRefPubMed
5.
Richardson, J. R., Peacock, S. J., Hawthorne, G., Iezzi, A., Elsworth, G., & Day, N. A. (2012). Construction of the descriptive system for the Assessment of Quality of Life AQoL-6D utility instrument. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10, 38. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., & Maxwell, A. (2014). Validity and reliability of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument. Patient, 7, 85–96. CrossRefPubMed
7.
Brooks, R., Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. E. (2003). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher. CrossRef
8.
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research, 20, 1727–1736. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21, 271–292. CrossRefPubMed
10.
Brazier, J. E., & Roberts, J. (2004). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Medical Care, 42, 851–859. CrossRefPubMed
11.
Whitehurst, D. G., Norman, R., Brazier, J. E., & Viney, R. (2014). Comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D responses using scoring algorithms derived from similar valuation exercises. Value in Health, 17, 570–577. CrossRefPubMed
12.
Mohiuddin, S., & Payne, K. (2014). Utility values for adults with unipolar depression: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Decision Making, 34, 666–685. CrossRefPubMed
13.
Revicki, D. A., Brandenburg, N., Matza, L., Hornbrook, M. C., & Feeny, D. (2008). Health-related quality of life and utilities in primary-care patients with generalized anxiety disorder. Quality of Life Research, 17, 1285–1294. CrossRefPubMed
14.
Revicki, D. A., Hanlon, J., Martin, S., Gyulai, L., Nassir Ghaemi, S., Lynch, F., et al. (2005). Patient-based utilities for bipolar disorder-related health states. Journal of Affective Disorders, 87, 203–210. CrossRefPubMed
15.
Revicki, D. A., & Wood, M. (1998). Patient-assigned health state utilities for depression-related outcomes: Differences by depression severity and antidepressant medications. Journal of Affective Disorders, 48, 25–36. CrossRefPubMed
16.
Hawthorne, G., Korn, S., & Richardson, J. (2013). Population norms for the AQoL derived from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 37, 7–16. CrossRefPubMed
17.
Slade, T., Johnston, A., Oakley Browne, M. A., Andrews, G., & Whiteford, H. (2007). National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Methods and key findings. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 594–605. CrossRef
18.
19.
Slade, J., Teeson, W., & Burgess, P. (2009). The mental health of Australians 2: Report on the 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Canberra: Department of Health.
20.
Richardson, J., Hawthorne, G., Day, N. A., Osborne, R., & McNeil, H. (1998). Difficulty with life and death: Methodological issues and results from the utility scaling of the assessment of quality of life ( AQoL) instrument. Working paper 70. Melbourne, VIC: The Centre for Health Program Evaluation (CHPE), Monash University.
21.
Kessler, R. C., Barker, P. R., Colpe, L. J., Epstein, J. F., Gfroerer, J. C., Hiripi, E., et al. (2003). Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 184–189. CrossRefPubMed
22.
Rehm, J., Üstün, T. B., Saxena, S., Nelson, C. B., Chatterji, S., Ivis, F., et al. (1999). On the development and psychometric testing of the WHO screening instrument to assess disablement in the general population. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 8, 110–122. CrossRef
23.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
Ferguson, C. J.. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 40, 532. CrossRef
25.
StataCorp. (2013). Stata statistical software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
26.
Hawthorne, G., & Osborne, R. (2005). Population norms and meaningful differences for the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) measure. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 136–142.
27.
Roberts, J., Lenton, P., Keetharuth, A. D., & Brazier, J. (2014). Quality of life impact of mental health conditions in England: Results from the adult psychiatric morbidity surveys. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 6. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Lamers, L. M., Bouwmans, C. A., van Straten, A., Donker, M. C., & Hakkaart, L. (2006). Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Economics, 15, 1229–1236. CrossRefPubMed
29.
Peasgood, T., & Brazier, J. (2015). Is meta-analysis for utility values appropriate given the potential impact different elicitation methods have on values? Pharmacoeconomics, 33, 1101–1105. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Sonntag, M., Konig, H. H., & Konnopka, A. (2013). The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: A systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics, 31, 1131–1154. CrossRefPubMed
31.
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2015). Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research, 24, 2045–2053. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Chen, G., & Maxwell, A. (2015). Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of 6 utility instruments in 7 disease areas. Medical Decision Making, 36, 147–159. CrossRefPubMed
33.
Mihalopoulos, C., Chen, G., Iezzi, A., Khan, M., & Richardson, J. (2014). Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: Comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. British Journal of Psychiatry, 205, 390–397. CrossRefPubMed
34.
Herrman, H., Hawthorne, G., & Thomas, R. (2002). Quality of life assessment in people living with psychosis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 37, 510–518. CrossRefPubMed
35.
Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. A. (2001). A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine, 33, 358–370. CrossRefPubMed
36.
Reavley, N. J., & Jorm, A. F. (2012). Public recognition of mental disorders and beliefs about treatment: Changes in Australia over 16 years. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 200, 419–425. CrossRefPubMed
37.
Pilkington, P. D., Reavley, N. J., & Jorm, A. F. (2013). The Australian public’s beliefs about the causes of depression: Associated factors and changes over 16 years. Journal of Affective Disorders, 150, 356–362. CrossRefPubMed
38.
Reavley, N. J., & Jorm, A. F. (2012). Stigmatising attitudes towards people with mental disorders: Changes in Australia over 8 years. Psychiatry Research, 197, 302–306. CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Health state utility values of high prevalence mental disorders in Australia: results from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing
Auteurs
Cathrine Mihalopoulos
Lidia Engel
Long Khanh-Dao Le
Anne Magnus
Meredith Harris
Mary Lou Chatterton
Publicatiedatum
09-04-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 7/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1843-2

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2018

Quality of Life Research 7/2018 Naar de uitgave

Special Section: Test Construction (by invitation only)

Measurement versus prediction in the construction of patient-reported outcome questionnaires: can we have our cake and eat it?

Special Section: Test Construction (by invitation only)

The use of latent variable mixture models to identify invariant items in test construction

OriginalPaper

Quality of life of patients with gastrointestinal cancers undergoing chemotherapy

Brief Communication

The modified Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form: a modified response format and rational scoring rules

OriginalPaper

Evaluation of options for presenting health-states from PROMIS® item banks for valuation exercises

Special Section: Test Construction (by invitation only)

Fit for purpose and modern validity theory in clinical outcomes assessment

Version: 0.2164.0