Abstract
Objective
This review aimed to identify published studies that provide an empirical measure of process utility, which can be incorporated into estimates of QALY calculations.
Methods
A literature search was conducted in PubMed to identify published studies of process utility. Articles were included if they were written in the English language and reported empirical measures of process utility that could be incorporated into the QALY calculation; those studies reporting utilities that were not anchored on a scale of 0 representing dead and 1 representing full health were excluded from the review.
Results
Fifteen studies published between 1996 and 2012 were included. Studies included respondents from the USA, Australia, Scotland and the UK, Europe and Canada. Eight of the included studies explored process utility associated with treatments; six explored process utility associated with screening procedures or tests; and one was performed in preventative care. A variety of approaches were used to detect and measure process utility: four studies used standard gamble techniques; four studies used time trade-off (TTO); one study used conjoint analysis and one used a combination of conjoint analysis and TTO; one study used SF-36 data; one study used both TTO and EQ-5D; and three studies used wait trade-off techniques. Measures of process utility for different drug delivery methods ranged from 0.02 to 0.27. Utility estimates associated with different dosing strategies ranged from 0.005 to 0.09. Estimates for convenience (able to take on an empty stomach) ranged from 0.001 to 0.028. Estimates of process utility associated with screening and testing procedures ranged from 0.0005 to 0.031. Both of these estimates were obtained for management approaches to cervical cancer screening.
Conclusion
The identification of studies through conventional methods was difficult due to the lack of consistent indexing and terminology across studies; however, the evidence does support the existence of process utility in treatment, screening and preventative care settings. There was considerable variation between estimates. The range of methodological approaches used to identify and measure process utility, coupled with the need for further research into, for example, the application of estimates in economic models, means it is difficult to know whether these differences are a true reflection of the amount of process utility that enters into an individual’s utility function, or whether they are associated with features of the studies’ methodological design. Without further work, and a standardised approach to the methodology for the detection and measurement of process utility, comparisons between estimates are difficult. This literature review supports the existence of process utility and indicates that, despite the need for further research in the area, it could be an important component of an individual’s utility function, which should at least be considered, if not incorporated, into cost-utility analyses.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Oliver A. Prioritizing health care: IS “Health” always an appropriate maximand? Med Decis Making. 2004;24:272.
Sussex J, Towse A, Devlin N. Operationalizing value-based pricing of medicines: a taxonomy of approaches. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31:1–10.
Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5–21.
Brouwer WBF, Culyer AJ, van Exel NJA, et al. Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ. 2008;27(2):325–38.
Gerard K, Mooney G. QALY league tables: handle with care. Health Econ. 1993;2:59–64.
Mooney G. Beyond health outcomes: the benefits of health care. Health Care Anal. 1998;6(2):99–1.
McAlister D. Putting health economics into quality. Public Money Manage. 1994;14(2):15–22.
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.
Swan J, Sainfort F. Process utility for imaging in cerebrovascular disease. Acad Radiol. 2003;10(3):266–74.
Opmeer BC, de Borgie CA, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM. Assessing preferences regarding healthcare interventions that involve non-health outcomes: an overview of clinical studies. Patient. 2010;3(1):1–10.
Nord E, Pinto-Prades JL, Richardson J, et al. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ. 1999;8:25–39.
Tsuchiya A. QALYs and ageism: philosophical theories and age weighting. Health Econ. 2000;9:57–68.
Dolan P, Tsuchiya A. Determining the parameters in social welfare function using stated preference data: an application to health. Appl Econ. 2011;43(18):1466–4283.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
Lloyd A, Nafees B, Bernett AH, et al. Willingness to pay for improvements in chronic long-acting insulin therapy in individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Therap. 2011;33(9):1258–67.
Cook J, Richardson J, Street A. A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: methodological issues and results. Health Econ. 1994;3:157–68.
Schmier JK, Palmer CS, Flood EM, et al. Utility assessments of opioid treatment for chronic pain. Pain Med. 2002;3(3):218–30.
Osborne RH, De Abreu Lourenço R, Dalton A, Houltram J, et al. Quality of life related to oral versus subcutaneous iron chelation: a time trade-off study. Value Health. 2007;10(6):51–6.
Osborne RH, Dalton A, Hertel J, Schrover R, Smith DK. 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.
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(7):1144–53.
Chancellor J, Aballéa S, Lawrence A, et al. Preferences of patients with diabetes mellitus for inhaled versus injectable insulin regimens. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(3):217–34.
Polster M, Zanutto E, McDonald S, et al. A comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products—liraglutide and exenatide—for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. J Med Econ. 2010;13(4):655–61.
Boye KS, Matza LS, Walter KN, et al. Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(3):219–30.
Birch S, Melnikow J, Kuppermann M. Conservative versus aggressive follow up of mildly abnormal Pap smears: testing for process utility. Health Econ. 2003;12(10):879–84.
Howard K, Salkeld G, McCaffery K, et al. HPV triage testing or repeat Pap smear for the management of atypical squamous cells (ASCUS) on Pap smear: is there evidence of process utility? Health Econ. 2008;17(5):593–605.
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;16:61.
Swan JS, Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, et al. A time-trade-off method for cost effectiveness models applied to radiology. Med Decis Making. 2000;20:79.
Swan JS, Lawrence WF, Roy J. Process utility in breast biopsy. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(4):347–59.
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(8):1593–601.
Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5:1–30.
Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:4.
Stouthard MEA, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ, Barendregt JJ, Kramer PG, van de Water HPA, Gunning-Schepers LJ, van der Maas PJ. Disability weights for diseases in the Netherlands. Rotterdam: Erasmus University; 1997.
Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman DL, et al. Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Dec Making. 1990;10:58.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Dolan P, Claxton K, McCabe C, Sculpher M, Tsuchyia A. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201–8.
Gafni A, Zylak CJ. Ionic versus non-ionic contrast media: a burden or a bargain? Can Med Assoc J. 1990;143(6):475–8.
Brazier JE, Rowen D. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 11: Alternatives to EQ-5D for generating health state utility values. 2011. http://www.nicedsu.org.uk. Accessed 18 Sept 2012.
Krabbe P, Stouthard M, Essink-Bot M, et al. The effect of adding a cognitive dimension to the EuroQol Multiattribute Health-Status Classification System. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(4):293–301.
Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya. The effect of adding a ‘sleep’ dimension to EQ-5D. In: Health Economists’ Group meeting. January 2008.
Brazier J, Rowen D, Tsuchiya A, Yang Y, Young T. What a pain: adding a generic dimension to a condition-specific preference-based measure. In: HESG Abstract. 2010.
Steine S, Finset A, Laerum E. A new, brief questionnaire (PEQ) developed in primary health care for measuring patients’ experience of interaction, emotion and consultation outcome. Family Practice. 2001;18:410–8.
Baron J. Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions. Psychol Bull. 1997;122:72–88.
Dolan P, Kahneman D. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ J. 2008;118(525):215–34.
Acknowledgments
Victoria K. Brennan and Simon Dixon received no funding for the preparation of this article and have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to its content.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brennan, V.K., Dixon, S. Incorporating Process Utility into Quality Adjusted Life Years: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies. PharmacoEconomics 31, 677–691 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0066-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0066-1