Quality of life impact of mental health conditions in England: results from the adult psychiatric morbidity surveys

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

John Brazier²  Anju D Keetharuth²  Pamela Lenton¹  Jennifer Roberts¹ 

[1] Department of Economics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK;School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

关键词: Anxiety;    Depression;    Co-morbidities;    Mental health;    Health state utility values;    Health-related quality of life;    SF-6D;    EQ-5D;   

Others  :  821823
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-12-6

 received in 2013-07-15, accepted in 2014-01-08,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The main objective is to present health state utility estimates for a broad range of mental health conditions including anxiety, depression, long-term depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, panic disorder, psychosis, alcohol and drug dependency that can be used in economic models.

Methods

This study uses pooled data from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Surveys carried out in 2000 and 2007 of a representative sample of the general population in England. Health state utility values measured by the SF-6D and EQ-5D indices are the dependent variables. Independent variables include background characteristics, mental health and physical health conditions. Regression models were estimated using OLS for the SF-6D and tobit for EQ-5D. Further regressions were carried out to consider the impact of mental health and physical health morbidities and the impact of severity of conditions on utility values.

Results

Mental health conditions tend to have a larger impact on health state utility values than physical health conditions. The mental health conditions associated with the highest decrements in utility are: depression, mixed anxiety and depressive disorders and long-term depression. Interaction terms used to model the effect of co-morbidities are generally found to be positive implying that simply adding the utility decrements for two mental health conditions overestimates the burden of the disease.

Conclusions

This paper presents reliable and representative community based mean SF-6D and EQ-5D estimates with standard errors for health state utility values across a broad range of mental health conditions that can be used in cost effectiveness modelling.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Roberts et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Alonso J, Angermeyer MC, Bernert S, et al.: Disability and quality of life impact of mental health disorders in Europe: results from the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Health Disorders (ESEMeD) project. Acta Psychiat Scand 2004, 109(Suppl 420):38-46.
• [2]Saarni SI, Suvisaari J, Sintonen H, et al.: Impact of psychiatric disorders on health-related quality of life: general population survey. The Brit J Psychiat 2007, 190(4):326-332.
• [3]Paykel ES, Brugha T, Fryers T: Size and burden of depressive disorders in Europe. Eur Neurol 2005, 15(4):411-423.
• [4]Brazier J: Measuring and valuing mental health for use in economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Po 2008, 13(Suppl 3):70-75.
• [5]Dolan P: Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997, 35(11):1095-1108.
• [6]Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002, 21(2):271-292.
• [7]Ara R, Wailoo A: Using health state utility values in models exploring the cost-effectiveness of health technologies. Value Health 2012, 15(6):971-974.
• [8]Peasgood T, Ward SE, Brazier J: Health-state utility values in breast cancer. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research 2010, 10(5):553-566.
• [9]Ara R, Brazier J: Estimating Health State Utility Values for Comorbid Health Conditions Using SF-6D Data. 2010. HEDS discussion paper series 2010, White Rose Research Online [http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/11049/ webcite]
• [10]McManus S, Meltzer H, Brugha TS, Bebbington PE, Jenkins R: Adult Psychiatric Morbidity in England, 2007: Results of a Household Survey. England: The Information Centre; 2009.
• [11]Singleton N, Lee A, Meltzer H: Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adults Living in Private Households. London: Office of National Statistics Technical Report; 2000.
• [12]Brazier JE, Roberts J: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med care 2004, 42(9):851-859.
• [13]Lewis G, Pelosi AJ, Araya R, Dunn G: Measuring psychiatric disorder in the community: a standardized assessment for use by lay interviewers. Psychol Med 1992, 22(02):465-486.
• [14]NatCen: Adult Psychiatry Morbidity Survey 2007: User guide. Leicester: NatCen; 2007.
• [15]Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B: SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation guide. Boston: MA: New England Medical Center. The Health Institute; 1993.
• [16]Gray AM, Rivero-Arias O, Clarke PM: Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med Decis Making 2006, 26(1):18-29.
• [17]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.
• [18]Greene WH: Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2000.
• [19]Keller MB, McCullough JP, Klein DN, Arnow B, Dunner DL, Gelenberg AJ, et al.: A comparison of nefazodone, the cognitive behavioral-analysis system of psychotherapy, and their combination for the treatment of chronic depression. New Engl J Med 2000, 342(20):1462-1470.
• [20]National Centre for Social Research and University of Leicester, Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, 2007 [computer file]. 3rd edition. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor]; January 2011. SN: 6379, http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6379-1 webcite doi:10.5255/UKDA-SN-6379-1#_blank
• [21]Ramsey JB: Tests for specification errors in classical linear least-squares regression analysis. J R Stat Soc 1969, 31(2):350-371.
• [22]Pregibon D: Goodness of link tests for generalized linear models. Appl Statis 1980, 29(1):15-24.
• [23]Tobin J: Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica 1958, 29(1):24-36.
• [24]Basu A: Extended generalized linear models: Simultaneous estimation of flexible link and variance functions. The Stata J 2005, 5(4):501-516.
• [25]Basu A, Rathouz PJ: Estimating marginal and incremental effects on health outcomes using flexible link and variance function models. Biostatistics 2005, 6(1):93-109.
• [26]Jones AM: Models for Health Care. Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 2010.
• [27]Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J: A comparison of the EQ5-D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004, 13(9):873-884.
• [28]Lamers LM, Bouwmans CAM, Van Straten A, Donker MCH, Hakkaart L: Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ 2006, 15(11):1229-1236.
• [29]McCrone P, Patel A, Knapp M, Schene A, Koeter , Ammadeo F, et al.: A comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores in a study of patients with schizophrenia. J Ment Health Policy 2009, 12.1:27-31.
• [30]Tosh J, Brazier J, Evans P, Longworth L: A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health 2012, 15(1):118-127.
• [31]Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Parry G: How valid and responsive are generic health status measures, such as EQ-5D and SF-36, in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Value Health 2011, 14(6):907-920.
• [32]Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL: A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ 2010, 11(2):215-225.