Utility Estimates of Disease-Specific Health States in Prostate Cancer from Three Different Perspectives

Katharine S. Gries (), Dean A. Regier, Scott D. Ramsey and Donald L. Patrick
Additional contact information
Katharine S. Gries: Evidera
Dean A. Regier: BC Cancer Agency Research Centre
Scott D. Ramsey: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Donald L. Patrick: University of Washington

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2017, vol. 15, issue 3, No 9, 375-384

Abstract: Abstract Objective To develop a statistical model generating utility estimates for prostate cancer specific health states, using preference weights derived from the perspectives of prostate cancer patients, men at risk for prostate cancer, and society. Methods Utility estimate values were calculated using standard gamble (SG) methodology. Study participants valued 18 prostate-specific health states with the five attributes: sexual function, urinary function, bowel function, pain, and emotional well-being. Appropriateness of model (linear regression, mixed effects, or generalized estimating equation) to generate prostate cancer utility estimates was determined by paired t-tests to compare observed and predicted values. Mixed-corrected standard SG utility estimates to account for loss aversion were calculated based on prospect theory. Results 132 study participants assigned values to the health states (n = 40 men at risk for prostate cancer; n = 43 men with prostate cancer; n = 49 general population). In total, 792 valuations were elicited (six health states for each 132 participants). The most appropriate model for the classification system was a mixed effects model; correlations between the mean observed and predicted utility estimates were greater than 0.80 for each perspective. Conclusions Developing a health-state classification system with preference weights for three different perspectives demonstrates the relative importance of main effects between populations. The predicted values for men with prostate cancer support the hypothesis that patients experiencing the disease state assign higher utility estimates to health states and there is a difference in valuations made by patients and the general population.

Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0282-x Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0282-x

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0282-x

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().