Obstetrical outcome valuations by patients, professionals, and laypersons: differences within and between groups using three valuation methods

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Gouke J Bonsel¹  Ben WJ Mol³  Erwin Birnie¹  Denise Bijlenga² 

[1] Institute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus MC, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands;Dept. of Social Medicine, Academic Medical Centre - University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre - University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands

关键词: obstetrics;    pregnancy;    psychometrics;    vignettes;    preference;    health outcome valuation;   

Others  :  1153316
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-11-93

 received in 2011-06-27, accepted in 2011-11-12,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

Decision-making can be based on treatment preferences of the patient, the doctor, or by guidelines based on lay people's preferences. We compared valuations assigned by three groups: patients, obstetrical care professionals, and laypersons, for health states involving both mother and (unborn) child. Our aim was to compare the valuations of different groups using different valuation methods and complex obstetric health outcome vignettes that involve both maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Methods

Patients (n = 24), professionals (n = 30), and laypersons (n = 27) valued the vignettes using three valuation methods: visual analogue scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and discrete choice experimentation (DCE). Each vignette covered five health attributes: maternal health ante partum, time between diagnosis and delivery, process of delivery, maternal outcome, and neonatal outcome. We used feasibility questionnaires, Generalization theory, test-retest reliability and within-group reliability to compare the valuation patterns between groups and methods. We assessed relative weights from each valuation method to test for consistency across groups.

Results

Test-retest reliability was equal across groups, but different across methods: highest for VAS (ICC = 0.61-0.73), intermediate for TTO (ICC = 0.24-0.74) and lowest for DCE (kappa = 0.15-0.37). Within-group reliability was highest in all groups with VAS (ICC = 0.70-0.73), intermediate with DCE (kappa = 0.56-0.76) and lowest with TTO (ICC = 0.20-0.66). Effects of groups were smaller than effects of methods. Differences between groups were largest for severe health states.

Conclusion

Based on our results, decision making among laypersons should use TTO or DCE; patients should use VAS or TTO.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Bijlenga et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
• [2]Shumway M, Saunders T, Shern D, Pines E, Downs A, Burbine T, et al.: Preferences for schizophrenia treatment outcomes among public policy makers, consumers, families, and providers. Psychiatr Serv 2003, 54:1124-1128.
• [3]Kassirer JP: Incorporating patients' preferences into medical decisions. N Engl J Med 1994, 330:1895-1896.
• [4]Ossa DF, Briggs A, McIntosh E, Cowell W, Littlewood T, Sculpher M: Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia: Economic Value and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Assessment Using Direct Utility Elicitation and Discrete Choice Experiment Methods. Pharmacoeconomics 2007, 25:223-237.
• [5]Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C: Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res 2003, 12:599-607.
• [6]Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ: Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 2006, 9:213-218.
• [7]Heckerling PS, Verp MS, Albert N: Patient or physician preferences for decision analysis: the prenatal genetic testing decision. Med Decis Making 1999, 19:66-77.
• [8]Saigal S, Stoskopf BL, Feeny D, Furlong W, Burrows E, Rosenbaum PL, et al.: Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents. JAMA 1999, 281:1991-1997.
• [9]Hsia HC, Thomson JG: Differences in breast shape preferences between plastic surgeons and patients seeking breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003, 112:312-320.
• [10]Angermeyer MC, Matschinger H: Public attitude towards psychiatric treatment. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1996, 94:326-336.
• [11]Swartz MS, Swanson JW, Wagner HR, Hannon MJ, Burns BJ, Shumway M: Assessment of four stakeholder groups' preferences concerning outpatient commitment for persons with schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 2003, 160:1139-1146.
• [12]Kane RL, Bell RM, Riegler SZ: Value preferences for nursing home outcomes. Gerontologist 1986, 26:303-308.
• [13]Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, Nooij MA, Noordijk EM, Kievit J: Unstable preferences: a shift in valuation or an effect of the elicitation procedure? Med Decis Making 2000, 20:62-71.
• [14]Ashby J, O'Hanlon M, Buxton MJ: The time trade-off technique: how do the valuations of breast cancer patients compare to those of other groups? Qual Life Res 1994, 3:257-265.
• [15]Sackett DL, Torrance GW: The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978, 31:697-704.
• [16]Krabbe PF, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ: The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med 1997, 45:1641-1652.
• [17]Bridges JF: Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003, 2:213-224.
• [18]Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M: Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 2000, 17:151-165.
• [19]Stiggelbout AM, de Vogel-Voogt E: Health state utilities: a framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real. Value Health 2008, 11:76-87.
• [20]Boers KE, Bijlenga D, Mol BW, LeCessie S, Birnie E, van Pampus MG, et al.: Disproportionate Intrauterine Growth Intervention Trial At Term: DIGITAT. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2007, 7:12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Koopmans CM, Bijlenga D, Aarnoudse JG, van BE, Bekedam DJ, van den Berg PP, et al.: Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring in women with pregnancy induced hypertension or mild preeclampsia at term: the HYPITAT trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2007, 7:14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Koopmans CM, Bijlenga D, Groen H, Vijgen SM, Aarnoudse JG, Bekedam DJ, et al.: Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks' gestation (HYPITAT): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009, 374:979-988.
• [23]Bijlenga D, Birnie E, Mol BW, Bonsel GJ: When outcome is a balance: methods to measure combined utility for the choice between induction of labour and expectant management in mild risk pregnancy at term. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2007, 7:10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]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, 12:821-827.
• [25]van den Hove MM, Willekes C, Roumen FJ, Scherjon SA: Intrauterine growth restriction at term: Induction or spontaneous labour? Disproportionate intrauterine growth intervention trial at term (DIGITAT): A pilot study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005.
• [26]Boers KE, Vijgen SM, Bijlenga D, van der Post JA, Bekedam DJ, Kwee A, et al.: Induction versus expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction at term: randomised equivalence trial (DIGITAT). BMJ 2010, 341:c7087.
• [27]Bonsel GJ, Janssen MF, Birnie E: Mild Disease & Ailments Study (MiDAS). Ziektelast bepaling van 27 vermoedelijk 'lichte' ziekten ten behoeve van rationele beperking van het geneesmiddelenpakket: samenvatting. [Dutch]. Amsterdam: dept. Social Medicine, AMC; 2003.
• [28]Patrick DL, Bush JW, Chen MM: Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index. Health Serv Res 1973, 8:228-245.
• [29]Gudex C, Dolan P, Kind P, Williams A: Health state valuations from the general public using the visual analogue scale. Qual Life Res 1996, 5:521-531.
• [30]Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL: A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 1972, 7:118-133.
• [31]Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel G: Feasibility and reliability of the annual profile method for deriving QALYs for short-term health conditions. Med Decis Making 2008, 28:500-510.
• [32]Luce RD, Tukey JW: Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1964, 1:1-27.
• [33]Melse JM, Essink-Bot ML, Kramers PG, Hoeymans N: A national burden of disease calculation: Dutch disability-adjusted life-years. Dutch Burden of Disease Group. Am J Public Health 2000, 90:1241-1247.
• [34]Haagsma JA, van Beeck EF, Polinder S, Hoeymans N, Mulder S, Bonsel GJ: Novel empirical disability weights to assess the burden of non-fatal injury. Inj Prev 2008, 14:5-10.
• [35]Torrance GW: Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socioeconomic Planning Science 1976, 10:129-136.
• [36]Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
• [37]Ryan M, Netten A, Skatun D, Smith P: Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome-An application to social care for older people. J Health Econ 2006.
• [38]Vandenbussche FP, De Jong-Potjer LC, Stiggelbout AM, le CS, Keirse MJ: Differences in the valuation of birth outcomes among pregnant women, mothers, and obstetricians. Birth 1999, 26:178-183.
• [39]Peeters Y, Stiggelbout A: Health state valuations of patients and the general public analytically compared: a meta-analytical comparison of patient and population health state utilities. Value Health 2010, 13:306-309.
• [40]De Wit GA, Busschbach JJ, De Charro FT: Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? Health Econ 2000, 9:109-126.
• [41]Bijlenga D, Bonsel GJ, Birnie E: Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes. Health Econ 2010.
• [42]Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC: Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.