Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing Health Utilities in Schizophrenia

A Feasibility Study

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Utility, a concept derived from economics, is the desirability or preference that individuals exhibit for a certain health state. Utility measurement could be viewed as an alternative means of appraising the quality of life of individuals affected by a chronic illness such as schizophrenia. Traditional techniques of utility measurement involve 2 steps: (i) identifying the different health states experienced by individuals during the course of an illness; and (ii) assigning them numerical values known as utilities.

Aim: The study examined the feasibility issues and psychometric aspects of obtaining accurate health state descriptions and their utilities from symptomatically stable patients with schizophrenia.

Methods: The study used a cross-sectional, case-controlled design, with a study group consisting of 120 clinically stabilised patients with schizophrenia and a control group of 32 treated and recovered patients with major depression. Patients were asked to provide detailed descriptions of 3 distinct health states associated with their illness: current state, worst state experienced since the onset of illness and a perfect state desired in the future. Further, patients were asked to assign utilities to these health states with the aid of a purpose-built evaluation protocol comprising Magnitude Estimation (ME), Rating Scale (RS), Standard Gamble (SG), Time Trade-Off (TTO) and Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) techniques. The battery was repeated after a 1-week interval. Independent raters assessed symptom severity, insight and quality of life, and nurse-clinicians involved in their care were asked to provide the utility ratings of their clients’ mental health state. Patients’ opinions about the acceptability of utility measurement techniques, and the respondent burden were also ascertained.

Results: Compared with control patients with treated depression, patients with schizophrenia were able to distinguish and describe the specified health states with an equal degree of ease and accuracy.RS, TTO and WTP techniques emerged as the favoured methods of utility evaluation. The test-retest reliability of utility ratings (r = 0.87 to 0.97; p < 0.001) was high, and concurrent validity with the quality of life measures was acceptable. Reliability and validity of patients’ appraisals were unaffected by symptoms severity and insight. The accuracy of nurse-clinicians’ appraisals were dependent on their close familiarity with the patients and their illness.

Conclusion: Clinically stabilised patients with schizophrenia can provide accurate health state descriptions and assign them utilities with a fair degree of reliability and validity. Utility evaluations based on patients’ self-appraisals can be seen as potential tools in outcome studies and clinical trials involving patients with schizophrenia, but the methodology requires further refinement to accommodate the limitations imposed by the patients’ disturbed mental status.

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

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI
Table VII

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization. Schizophrenia: an international follow-up study. Chichester: World Health Organisation, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ottawa-Carleton Friends of Schizophrenics. Schizophrenic psychosis in Canada. Ottawa (ON): Ottawa-Carleton Chapter of Ontario Friends of Schizophrenia, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  3. Davies LM, Drummond MF. The economic burden of schizophrenia. Psychiatr Bull 1990; 14: 522–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Awad AG, Voruganti LNP, Heslegrave RJ. The aims of antipsychotic medications: what are they and are they being achieved? CNS Drugs 1995; 4: 8–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Awad AG. Quality of life in medicated schizophrenics: therapeutic and research implications. In: Shriqui C, Nasrallah H, editors. Contemporary issues in the treatment of schizophrenia. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1995: 883–46

    Google Scholar 

  6. Awad AG, Voruganti LNP, Heslegrave RJ. Measuring quality of life in patients with schizophrenia. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11: 32–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lehman A. The wellbeing of chronic mental patients: assessing their quality of life. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1983; 40: 369–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sullivan G, Wells K, Leake B. Quality of life of seriously mentally ill persons in Mississippi. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1991; 42: 752–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Voruganti LNP, Heslegrave RJ, Awad AG, et al. Quality of life measurement in schizophrenia: reconciling the quest for subjectivity with the question of reliability. Psychol Med 1998; 28: 165–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Awad AG, Voruganti LNP. Cost-utility analysis in schizophrenia. J Clin Psychiatry 1999; 60 Suppl. 3: 22–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Voruganti L, Cortese L, Ouyewumi L, et al. Comparative evaluation of conventional and new antipsychotic drugs with reference to their subjective tolerability, side effect profile and impact on quality of life. Schizophr Res. In press

  12. Drummond M, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Cost-utility analysis. In: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programs. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1987: 112–38

    Google Scholar 

  13. Torrance G. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 593–600

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Revicki D. Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Med Care 1992; 30 Suppl.: MS274–82

    Google Scholar 

  15. Revicki D, Luce BR. Pharmacoeconomics research applied to psychopharmacology development and evaluation: methods of pharmacoeconomic evaluation of new medical treatments in psychiatry. Psychopharmacol Bull 1995; 31: 57–65

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hargreaves WA, Shumway M. Pharmacoeconomics of antipsychotic drug therapy. J Clin Psychiatry 1996; 57 Suppl. 9: 66–76

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Revicki D, Shakespeare A, Kind P. Preferences for schizophrenia related health states: a comparison of patients, care givers and psychiatrists. Int Clin Psychopharmacology 1996; 11: 101–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Chouinard G, Albright P. Economic and health state utility determinations for schizophrenic patients treated with risperidone or haloperidol. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1997; 17 (4): 298–307

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kay S, Opler L, Lindenmayer J. Reliability of positive and negative syndrome scale for schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res 1988; 23: 99–110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Amador X, Strauss DH, Yale SA, et al. Assessment of insight in psychosis. Am J Psychiatry 1993: 150: 873–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Heinrichs D, Hanlon E, Carpenter W, et al. The quality of life scale: an instrument for rating the schizophrenic deficit syndrome. Schizophr Bull 1984; 10: 388–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Carter WB, et al. The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Voruganti L, Awad AG. Sickness impact profile (SIP) as a measure of patients’ quality of life (QOL) in clinical trials involving antipsychotic drugs. Annual Meeting of the American College of Neuro-Psychopharmacology; 1995 Dec 4–10; Puerto Rico

  25. Endicott J, Spitzer RL, Fleiss JL, et al. The global assessment scale: a procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1976; 33: 766–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gurin G, Verhoff J, Felds S. Americans view their mental health. New York (NY): Russell Sage Foundation, 1960

    Google Scholar 

  27. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland H, Tibshirani R, et al. Describing health states. Med Care 1984; 22: 543–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behaviour. 2nd ed. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press, 1947

    Google Scholar 

  29. Revicki D, Brown RE, Keller M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of new antidepressants compared with tricyclic antidepressants in managed care settings. J Clin Psychiatry 1997; 58: 47–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Froberg D, Kane R. Methodology for measuring health state preferences: I. Measurement strategy. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 345–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Froberg D, Kane R. Methodology for measuring health states preferences: II. Scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 459–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Froberg D, Kane R. Methodology for measuring health states preferences: III. Population and context effects. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 585–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Revicki D, Murray M. Assessing mental health-related quality of life outcomes of drug treatments for psychiatric disorders. CNS Drugs 1994; 1: 465–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The project was jointly funded by Ontario’s Ministry of Education and Training and Janssen-Ortho Inc. under the University Research Incentive Fund (Grant # WE26-004) Competition (1995-96). The authors also wish to thank Dr Martha Shumway for her helpful suggestions in developing the utility measurement protocol.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Voruganti, L.N.P., Awad, A.G., Kola Oyewumi, L. et al. Assessing Health Utilities in Schizophrenia. Pharmacoeconomics 17, 273–286 (2000). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200017030-00005

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200017030-00005

Keywords

Navigation