Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

This review explores the evidence from the literature regarding how meta-health effects (effects other than health resulting from the consumption of health care) are valued for use in economic evaluations.

Methods

A systematic review of the published literature (the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit and SocINDEX databases were searched for publications in March 2016, plus manual searching) investigated the associations between study methods and the resulting values for meta-health effects estimated for use in economic evaluations. The review considered which meta-health effects were being valued and how this differed by evaluation approach, intervention investigated, source of funds and year of publication. Detailed reasons for differences observed between values for comparable meta-health effects were explored, accounting for the method of valuation.

Results

The search of the literature revealed 71 studies of interest; 35% involved drug interventions, with convenience, information and process of care the three meta-health effects most often investigated. Key associations with the meta-health effects were the evaluation method, the intervention, and the source of funds. Relative values for meta-health effects ranged from 0.9% to 68% of the overall value reported in a study. For a given meta-health effect, the magnitude of the effect evaluated and how the meta-health effect was described and framed relative to overall health explained the differences in relative values.

Conclusions

Evidence from the literature shows variability in how meta-health effects are being measured for use in economic evaluations. Understanding the sources of that variability is important if decision makers are to have confidence in how meta-health effects are valued.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clement F, Harris A, Li J, Yong K, Lee K, Manns B. Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada. JAMA. 2009;302:1437–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Erdine S. How do compliance, convenience, and tolerability affect blood pressure goal rates? Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2012;12:295–302.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Somayaji R, Parkins MD. Tobramycin inhalation powder: an efficient and efficacious therapy for the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in cystic fibrosis. Ther Deliv. 2015;6:121–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Opmeer BC, De Borgie CAJM, Mol BWJ, Bossuyt PMM. Assessing preferences regarding healthcare interventions that involve non-health outcomes: an overview of clinical studies. Patient. 2010;3:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brennan VK, Dixon S. Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: a systematic review of empirical studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:677–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Salkeld G, Quine S, Cameron ID. What constitutes success in preventive health care? A case study in assessing the benefits of hip protectors. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:1593–601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gandjour A. Is subjective well-being a useful parameter for allocating resources among public interventions? Health Care Anal. 2001;9:437–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Koszegi B. Health anxiety and patient behavior. J Health Econ. 2003;22:1073–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Augustovski F, Beratarrechea A, Irazola V, et al. Patient preferences for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis: a discrete-choice experiment. Value Health. 2013;16:385–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Birch S, Melnikow J, Kuppermann M. Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: testing for process utility. Health Econ. 2003;12:879–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Borghi J, Jan S. Measuring the benefits of health promotion programmes: application of the contingent valuation method. Health Policy. 2008;87:235–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bryan S, Jowett S. Hypothetical versus real preferences: results from an opportunistic field experiment. Health Econ. 2010;19:1502–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chan YM, Sahota DS, Leung TY, Choy KW, Chan OK, Lau TK. Chinese women’s preferences for prenatal diagnostic procedure and their willingness to trade between procedures. Prenat Diagn. 2009;29:1270–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dixon S, Shackley P. Estimating the benefits of community water fluoridation using the willingness-to-pay technique: results of a pilot study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999;27:124–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does ‘process utility’ exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:699–707.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fiebig DG, Knox S, Viney R, Haas M, Street DJ. Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products. Health Econ. 2011;20(Suppl 1):35–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Guimaraes C, Marra CA, Colley L, et al. Socioeconomic differences in preferences and willingness-to-pay for insulin delivery systems in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009;11:567–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hauber AB, Gonzalez JM, Schenkel B, Lofland JH, Martin S. The value to patients of reducing lesion severity in plaque psoriasis. J Dermatolog Treat. 2011;22:266–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Howard K, Salkeld G, McCaffery K, Irwig L. HPV triage testing or repeat pap smear for the management of a typical squamous cells (ASCUS) on pap smear: is there evidence of process utility? Health Econ. 2008;17:593–605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lakdawalla DN, Romley JA, Sanchez Y, Maclean JR, Penrod JR, Philipson T. How cancer patients value hope and the implications for cost-effectiveness assessments of high-cost cancer therapies. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31:676–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Naik-Panvelkar P, Armour C, Rose J, Saini B. Patients’ value of asthma services in Australian pharmacies: the way ahead for asthma care. J Asthma. 2012;49:310–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Hammitt JK, et al. Willingness-to-pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents. Health Econ. 2012;21:238–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Oteng B, Marra F, Lynd LD, Ogilvie G, Patrick D, Marra CA. Evaluating societal preferences for human papillomavirus vaccine and cervical smear test screening programme. Sex Transm Infect. 2011;87:52–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Palumbo A, De La Fuente P, Rodriguez M, et al. Willingness to pay and conjoint analysis to determine women’s preferences for ovarian stimulating hormones in the treatment of infertility in Spain. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1790–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Park H, Chon Y, Lee J, Choi Ie J, Yoon KH. Service design attributes affecting diabetic patient preferences of telemedicine in South Korea. Telemed J Educ Health. 2011;17:442–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilization. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:535–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Swan JS, Lawrence WF, Roy J. Process utility in breast biopsy. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:347–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Swan JS, Sainfort F, Lawrence WF, Kuruchittham V, Kongnakorn T, Heisey DM. Process utility for imaging in cerebrovascular disease. Acad Radiol. 2003;10:266–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yasunaga H, Ide H, Imamura T, Ohe K. Benefit evaluation of mass screening for prostate cancer: willingness-to-pay measurement using contingent valuation. Urology. 2006;68:1046–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Boye K, Matza L, Walter K, Van Brunt K, Palsgrove A, Tynan A. Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12:219–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cairns J, Shackley P, Hundley V. Decision making with respect to diagnostic testing: a method of valuing the benefits of antenatal screening. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:161–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chancellor J, Aballea S, Lawrence A, et al. Preferences of patients with diabetes mellitus for inhaled versus injectable insulin regimens. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:217–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cook J, Richardson JR, Street A. A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: methodological issues and results. Health Econ. 1994;3:157–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Osborne RH, Dalton A, Hertel J, Schrover R, Kingsford Smith D. Health-related quality of life advantage of long-acting injectable antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia: a time-trade off study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Osborne RH, De Abreu Lourenco R, Dalton A, et al. Quality of life related to oral versus subcutaneous iron chelation: a time trade-off study. Value Health. 2007;10:451–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Philips Z, Avis M, Whynes D. Introducing HPV triage into the English cervical cancer screening program: consequences for participation. Women Health. 2006;43:17–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Polster M, Zanutto E, McDonald S, Conner C, Hammer M. A comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products—liraglutide and exenatide—for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ. 2010;13:655–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Prosser LA, Kuntz KM, Bar-Or A, Weinstein MC. Patient and community preferences for treatments and health states in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2003;9:311–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Swan J, Fryback D, Lawrence W, Sainfort F, Hagenauer M, Heisey D. A time-tradeoff method for cost-effectiveness models applied to radiology. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:79–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Protiere C, Donaldson C, Luchini S, Moatti JP, Shackley P. The impact of information on non-health attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programmes. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:1257–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gidengil C, Lieu T, Payne K, Rusinak D, Messonnier M, Prosser L. Parental and societal values for the risks and benefit of childhood combination vaccines. Vaccine. 2012;30:3445–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Johnson ES, Sullivan SD, Mozaffari E, Langley PC, Bodsworth NJ. A utility assessment of oral and intravenous ganciclovir for the maintenance treatment of AIDS-related cytomegalovirus retinitis. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996;10:623–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Phillips K, Maddala T, Johnson F. Conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. HSR Health Serv Res. 2002;37:1681–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Carroll FE, Al-Janabi H, Flynn T, Montgomery AA. Women and their partners’ preferences for Down’s syndrome screening tests: a discrete choice experiment. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:449–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Matza LS, Sapra SJ, Dillon JF, et al. Health state utilities associated with attributes of treatments for hepatitis C. Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16:1005–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Nafees B, Lloyd A, Elkin E, Porret T. To explore preferences and willingness to pay for attributes regarding stoma appliances amongst patients in the UK, France and Germany. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015;31:687–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Torbica A, Fattore G, Ayala F. Eliciting preferences to inform patient-centred policies: the case of psoriasis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:209–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yee LM, Kaimal AJ, Houston KA, et al. Mode of delivery preferences in a diverse population of pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(377):e1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kauf TL, Roskell N, Shearer A, et al. A predictive model of health state utilities for HIV patients in the modern era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. Value Health. 2008;11:1144–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Schmier J, Palmer C, Flood E, Gourlay G. Utility assessments of opioid treatment for chronic pain. Pain Med. 2002;3:218–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bijlenga D, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of three health-state valuation methods using multiple-outcome vignettes on moderate-risk pregnancy at term. Value Health. 2009;12:821–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Brett Hauber A, Mohamed AF, Beam C, Medjedovic J, Mauskopf J. Patient preferences and assessment of likely adherence to hepatitis C virus treatment. J Viral Hepat. 2011;18:619–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Brown TM, Pashos CL, Joshi AV, Lee WC. The perspective of patients with haemophilia with inhibitors and their care givers: preferences for treatment characteristics. Haemophilia. 2011;17:476–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bunge EM, de Bekker-Grob EW, van Biezen FC, Essink-Bot ML, de Koning HJ. Patients’ preferences for scoliosis brace treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Spine. 2010;35:57–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Davison SN, Kromm SK, Currie GR. Patient and health professional preferences for organ allocation and procurement, end-of-life care and organization of care for patients with chronic kidney disease using a discrete choice experiment. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25:2334–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Dwight Johnson M, Apesoa-Varano C, Hay J, Unutzer J, Hinton L. Depression treatment preferences of older white and Mexican origin men. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35:59–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Dwight-Johnson M, Lagomasino IT, Hay J, et al. Effectiveness of collaborative care in addressing depression treatment preferences among low-income Latinos. Psychiatr Serv. 2010;61:1112–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Gerard K, Shanahan M, Louviere J. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to inform health care decision-making: a pilot study of breast screening participation. Appl Econ. 2003;35:1073–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Haas M. The impact of non-health attributes of care on patients’ choice of GP. Aust J Prim Health. 2005;11:40–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hendrix M, Pavlova M, Nieuwenhuijze MJ, Severens JL, Nijhuis JG. Differences in preferences for obstetric care between nulliparae and their partners in the Netherlands: a discrete-choice experiment. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2010;31:243–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kauf TL, Mohamed AF, Hauber AB, Fetzer D, Ahmad A. Patients’ willingness to accept the risks and benefits of new treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Patient. 2012;5:265–78.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Marti J. A best-worst scaling survey of adolescents’ level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:87–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Porzsolt F, Clouth J, Deutschmann M, Hippler HJ. Preferences of diabetes patients and physicians: a feasibility study to identify the key indicators for appraisal of health care values. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:125.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Scotland GS, McNamee P, Cheyne H, Hundley V, Barnett C. Women’s preferences for aspects of labor management: results from a discrete choice experiment. Birth. 2011;38:36–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Shackley P, Slack R, Michaels J. Vascular patients’ preferences for local treatment: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001;6:151–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Snoek GJ, van Til JA, Krabbe PF, Ijzerman MJ. Decision for reconstructive interventions of the upper limb in individuals with tetraplegia: the effect of treatment characteristics. Spinal Cord. 2008;46:228–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Sung L, Alibhai SM, Ethier MC, et al. Discrete choice experiment produced estimates of acceptable risks of therapeutic options in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:627–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1998;3:70–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Waschbusch DA, Cunningham CE, Pelham WE, et al. A discrete choice conjoint experiment to evaluate parent preferences for treatment of young, medication naive children with ADHD. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2011;40:546–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Benning TM, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, Severens JL. Preferences for potential innovations in non-invasive colorectal cancer screening: a labeled discrete choice experiment for a Dutch screening campaign. Acta Oncol. 2014;53:898–908.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Burton CR, Fargher E, Plumpton C, Roberts GW, Owen H, Roberts E. Investigating preferences for support with life after stroke: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. de Bekker-Grob EW, Bliemer MC, Donkers B, et al. Patients’ and urologists’ preferences for prostate cancer treatment: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer. 2013;109:633–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Franken M, Koolman X. Health system goals: a discrete choice experiment to obtain societal valuations. Health Policy. 2013;112:28–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Hechmati G, Hauber AB, Arellano J, et al. Patients’ preferences for bone metastases treatments in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:21–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Kaambwa B, Lancsar E, McCaffrey N, et al. Investigating consumers’ and informal carers’ views and preferences for consumer directed care: a discrete choice experiment. Soc Sci Med. 2015;140:81–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Kan VY, Marquez Azalgara V, Ford JA, Peter Kwan WC, Erb SR, Yoshida EM. Patient preference and willingness to pay for transient elastography versus liver biopsy: a perspective from British Columbia. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;29:72–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Marsidi N, van den Bergh MW, Luijendijk RW. The best marketing strategy in aesthetic plastic surgery: evaluating patients’ preferences by conjoint analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:52–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Wilson L, Loucks A, Bui C, et al. Patient centered decision making: use of conjoint analysis to determine risk-benefit trade-offs for preference sensitive treatment choices. J Neurol Sci. 2014;344:80–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Poulos C, Hauber A, Gonzalez J, Turpcu A. Patients’ willingness to trade off between the duration and frequency of rheumatoid arthritis treatments. Arthritis Care Res. 2014;66:1008–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Benning T, Dellaert B, Severens J, Dirksen C. The effect of presenting information about invasive follow-up testing on individuals’ noninvasive colorectal cancer screening participation decision: results from a discrete choice experiment. Value Health. 2014;17:578–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Lin P, Concannon T, Greenberg D, et al. Does framing of cancer survival affect perceived value of care? A willingness-to-pay survey of US residents. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;13:513–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Payne K, McAllister M, Davies LM. Valuing the economic benefits of complex interventions: when maximising health is not sufficient. Health Econ. 2013;22:258–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ. 2002;11:447–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. General methods. Cologne; 2015.

  86. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. In: Department of Health (ed). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2013.

  87. Higgins A, Barnett J, Meads C, Singh J, Longworth L. Does convenience matter in health care delivery? A systematic review of convenience-based aspects of process utility. Value Health. 2014;17:877–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Conn VS, Ruppar TM, Maithe Enriquez RN, Cooper PS. Patient-centered outcomes of medication adherence interventions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health. 2016;19:277–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Shani Y, Tykocinski OE, Zeelenberg M. When ignorance is not bliss: how feelings of discomfort promote the search for negative information. J Econ Psychol. 2008;29:643–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contribution of Liz Chinchen in conducting the initial search of the literature and assisting with refinement of the search criteria. They also acknowledge the contributions made by the anonymous reviewers at Pharmacoeconomics in refining this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Level 2, Block 5D, Quay St, Haymarket, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Richard De Abreu Lourenco, Marion Haas, Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney

Authors
  1. Richard De Abreu Lourenco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marion Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jane Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rosalie Viney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard De Abreu Lourenco.

Ethics declarations

This research was completed as part of a Ph.D. programme for Richard De Abreu Lourenco, who was a recipient of the University of Technology Sydney Business School Ph.D. Scholarship.

Funding

No funding was received specifically for the conduct of this research.

Conflict of interest

Richard De Abreu Lourenco has no conflicts of interest to declare. Professor Marion Haas, Professor Jane Hall and Professor Rosalie Viney have no conflicts of interest to declare. There was no requirement for this study to undergo review by a Human Research Ethics Committee.

Author contributions

RAL was responsible for the design of this research, review of the literature searches, data abstraction and analysis, and manuscript preparation. Professors MH, JH and RV were involved in defining the parameters of the research, resolving questions regarding study inclusion, interpretation of the analysis, and manuscript preparation. All authors take responsibility for the final version of this article.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 11 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Abreu Lourenco, R., Haas, M., Hall, J. et al. Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence. PharmacoEconomics 35, 347–362 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0470-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0470-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation