Skip to main content
Log in

Eliciting social preference weights for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung health states

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

Abstract

Background: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) is a multidimensional measure of quality of life developed for use in the evaluation of interventions in lung cancer.

Objective: To develop a set of utility weights that could be used to convert FACT-L into a single index capable of being used in the economic analysis of clinical trial data.

Method: A core set of FACT-L items were valued in two versions of a 14-page postal survey of over 400 members of the UK general population. Respondents valued hypothetical FACT-L health states using a scale from 0 to 100 (worst to best health state). Respondents also valued their own health using the standard form of the EuroQol EQ-5D. Data were entered into an ordinary least squares regression model.

Results: Item weights estimated in regression analysis yielded values for 10 items from the FACT-L. The summary index based on this selected set of FACT-L items has a maximum value of 0.703 and a minimum value of 0.111.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates a practical method of converting a standard condition-specific measure into a form that has the requisite properties to legitimise its use in cost-utility analysis. The methodology used here is not unique to FACT-L and might be considered appropriate for use in converting similar instruments.

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. Feeny D, Furlong B, Boyle M, et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7 (6: 490–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37 (1): 53–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bagust A, Barraza-Llorens M, Philips Z. Deriving a compound quality of life measure from the EORTC-QLQ-C30/LC13 instrument for use in economic evaluations of lung cancer clinical trials. Fur J Cancer 2001; 37 (9): 1081–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy Scale: development and validation of the measure. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 570–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  6. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf [Accessed 2005 Oct 28]

  7. Lamers LM, Buijt I, Uyl-de Groot C. The development of utility weights for functional assessment of cancer therapy-lung scale (FACT-L) health states [abstract 1366]. 10th annual conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL); 2003 Nov 12-15; Prague

  8. Office for National Statistics. 2001 census: key statistics. London: HMSO, 2002

  9. Office for National Statistics. Labour force survey. London: HMSO, 2003

  10. Evens B, Primatesta P. Health survey for England. London: HMSO, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  11. Macran S, Kind P. “Death” and the valuation of health-related quality of life. Med Care 2001 Mar; 39 (3): 217–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Trippoli S, Vaiani M, Lucioni C, et al. Quality of life and utility in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: Quality-of-life Study Group of the Master 2 Project in Pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (8): 855–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ko CY, Maggard M, Livingston EH. Evaluating health utility in patients with melanoma, breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer: a nationwide, population-based assessment. J Surg Res 2003; 114 (1): 1–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Griffiths TL, Phillips CJ, Davies S, et al. Cost effectiveness of an outpatient multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation pro-gramme. Thorax 2001 Oct; 56 (10): 779–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Czoski-Murray C, Warren E, Chilcott J, et al. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8 (13): 1–91

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Both authors worked jointly on the qualitative review of FACT-L. Paul Kind designed and directed the study and was responsible for drafting this manuscript. He performed all secondary data analysis. Susan Macran undertook the questionnaire design and managed all aspects of the survey. She conducted initial descriptive analysis and prepared related text.

Funding for this study was made possible by an unrestricted grant provided by AstraZeneca UK. Neither author recognises any potential conflict of interest relevant to this paper or the research upon which it is based.

The productive association with our research partners Yvonne Buijt, Carin Uyl-de Groot and Lada Lamers at the iMTA, Erasmus University, Rotterdam is also duly recognised. The outreach support provided by Cancer BACUP is also gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Kind.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kind, P., Macran, S. Eliciting social preference weights for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung health states. Pharmacoeconomics 23, 1143–1153 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523110-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523110-00006

Keywords

Navigation