Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-03-2012 | Brief Communication

Social relationships as a major determinant in the valuation of health states

Auteurs: Ulrich Frick, Hyacinth Irving, Jürgen Rehm

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 2/2012

Abstract

Purpose

To empirically determine the impact of the capacity to sustain social relationships on valuing health states.

Methods

68 clinical experts conducted a health state valuation exercise in five sites using pairwise comparison, ranking, and person trade-off as elicitation methods. 23,840 pairwise comparisons of a total of 379 health states were analyzed by conditional logistic regression.

Results

Social relationships had a clear monotonic association with perceived disability: the more limited the capacity to sustain social relationships, the more disabling the resulting health state valuations. The highest level of limitations with respect to social relationships was associated with slightly lower impact on health state valuations compared to the highest level of limitations in physical functioning.

Conclusions

Social relationships showed an independent contribution to health state valuations and should be included in health state measures.

vorige artikel The psychosocial impact of cancer: evidence in support of independent general positive and negative components

volgende artikel Use of the Distress Thermometer to discern clinically relevant quality of life differences in women with breast cancer

Murray, C. J. L., Salomon, J., Mathers, C., & Lopez, A. (2002). Summary measures of population health: Concepts, ethics, measurement and applications. Geneva: WHO.

Murray, C. J. L., & Lopez, A. D. (1996). The global burden of disease: A comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. Cambridge, MA: Harvard School of Public Health (on behalf of the WHO and World Bank).

Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programme (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gold, M. R., Stevenson, D., & Fryback, D. G. (2002). HALYS and QALYS and DALYS, Oh My: Similarities and differences in summary measures of population health. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 115–134.PubMedCrossRef

Green, C., Brazier, J., & Deverill, M. (2000). Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics, 17, 151–165.PubMedCrossRef

Morimoto, T., & Fukui, T. (2002). Utilities measured by rating scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: Review and reference for health care professionals. Journal of Epidemiology, 12, 160–178.PubMedCrossRef

Mortimer, D., & Segal, L. (2008). Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QUALY-weights. Medical Decision Making, 28, 66–89.PubMedCrossRef

Rehm, J., & Frick, U. (2010). Valuation of health states in the US study to establish disability weights: Lessons from the literature. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 19, 18–33.PubMedCrossRef

Ryan, M., Scott, D. A., Reeves, C., Bate, A., van Teijlingen, E. R., Russell, E. M., et al. (2001). Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: A systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assessment, 5, 1–186.PubMed

10.

Broome, J. (2004). Weighing lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

11.

McIntosh, C. N., Connor Gorber, S., Bernier, J., & Berthelot, J. M. (2007). Eliciting Canadian population preferences for health states using the Classification and Measurement System of Functional Health (CLAMES). Chronic Diseases in Canada, 28, 29–41.PubMed

12.

Kopec, J., & Willison, K. (2003). A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 317–325.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., & Coons, S. J. (2007). A comparison of EQ-5D index scores derived from the US and UK population-based scoring functions. Medical Decision Making, 27, 321–326.CrossRef

14.

Stiggelbout, A., & de Vogel-Voogt, E. (2008). Health state utilities: A framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real. Value in Health, 11, 76–87.PubMedCrossRef

15.

WHO. (2006). Basic documents (45th ed., Supplement). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf.

16.

Hughner, R. S., & Kleine, S. S. (2004). Views of health in the lay sector: A compilation and review of how individuals think about health. Health (London), 8, 395–422.CrossRef

17.

Llewellyn-Thomas, H. (1996). Health state descriptions: Purposes, issues, a proposal. Medical Care, 34(12 Suppl), DS109–DS118.PubMed

18.

Revicki, D., & Kaplan, R. (1993). Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 2, 477–487.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Dolan, P. (2000). The measurement of health-related quality of life for use in resource allocation decisions in health care. In A. Culyer & J. Newhouse (Eds.), Handbook of health economics (pp. 1724–1760). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

20.

Larson, J. S. (1999). The conceptualization of health. Medical Care Research and Review, 56, 123–136.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Francis, B., Dittrich, R., Hatzinger, R., & Penn, R. (2002). Analysing partial ranks by using smoothed paired comparison methods: An investigation of value orientation in Europe. Applied Statistics, 51, 319–336.

22.

Hawthorne, G., Osborne, R. H., Taylor, A., & Sansoni, J. (2007). The SF36 Version 2: Critical analyses of population weights, scoring algorithms and population norms. Quality of Life Research, 16, 661–673.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Beals, J., Welty, T. K., Mitchell, C. M., Rhoades, D. A., Yeh, J. L., Henderson, J. A., et al. (2006). Different factor loadings for SF36: The Strong Heart Study and the National Survey of Functional Health Status. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59, 208–215.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Jenkinson, C., Stewart-Brown, S., Petersen, S., & Paice, C. (1999). Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53, 46–50.PubMedCrossRef

25.

House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241, 540–545.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Kunitz, S. J. (2004). Social capital and health. British Medical Bulletin, 69, 61–73.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., Torrance, G. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Zhu, Z., DePauw, S., et al. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–128.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001). The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33, 375–384.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Ware, J., & Sherbourne, C. (1992). The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQoL: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72.PubMedCrossRef

31.

EuroQoL Group. (1990). EuroQoL—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208.CrossRef

32.

Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQoL group. Annals of Medicine, 33, 337–343.PubMedCrossRef

33.

WHO. (2001). International classification of functioning disability and health. Geneva: WHO.

34.

Üstün, T. B., Kostanjsek, N., Chatterji, S., & Rehm, J. (2010). Measuring health and disability. Manual for WHO disability assessment schedule WHODAS 2.0. Geneva: WHO.

35.

Üstün, T. B., Chatterji, S., Kostanjsek, N., Rehm, J., Kennedy, C., Epping-Jordan, J., et al. (2010). Developing the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88, 815–823.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Social relationships as a major determinant in the valuation of health states
Auteurs: Ulrich Frick
Hyacinth Irving
Jürgen Rehm
Publicatiedatum: 01-03-2012
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 2/2012
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9945-0

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2012

Henrica C. W. de Vet, Caroline B. Terwee, Lidwine B. Mokkink, and Dirk L. Knol: Measurement in medicine: a practical guide

Verification of the psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 palliative (EORTCQLQ-C15-PAL)

Erratum to: Differences in quality of life of hemodialysis patients between dialysis centers

Quality of life in pregnancy and post-partum: a study in diabetic patients

EQ-5D as a predictor of mortality and hospitalization in elderly people

Use of the Distress Thermometer to discern clinically relevant quality of life differences in women with breast cancer