Impact of caregiver and parenting status on time trade-off and standard gamble utility scores for health state descriptions

被引:19
作者
Matza, Louis S. [1 ]
Boye, Kristina S. [2 ]
Feeny, David H. [3 ]
Johnston, Joseph A. [4 ]
Bowman, Lee [5 ]
Jordan, Jessica B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Evidera, Outcomes Res, Bethesda, MD USA
[2] Eli Lilly & Co, Global Hlth Outcomes, Diabet, Indianapolis, IN 46285 USA
[3] Univ Alberta, Dept Econ, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E1, Canada
[4] Eli Lilly & Co, Global Hlth Outcomes, Indianapolis, IN 46285 USA
[5] Eli Lilly & Co, Global Hlth Outcomes, Oncol, Indianapolis, IN 46285 USA
关键词
Utility; Time trade-off; Standard gamble; Caregiver; Parenting; Cost-utility; COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY; CANCER-PATIENTS; VALUATIONS; FEASIBILITY; PREFERENCES; VALUES; LIFE;
D O I
10.1186/1477-7525-12-48
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of caregiver status on time trade-off (TTO) and standard gamble (SG) health state utility scores. Respondents were categorized as caregivers if they reported that either children or adults depended on them for care. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of data from three studies in which general population samples rated health state descriptions. Study 1: UK; four osteoarthritis health states. Study 2: UK; three adult ADHD health states. Study 3: US; 16 schizophrenia health states. All three studies included time trade-off assessment. Study 1 also included standard gamble. Descriptive statistics were calculated to examine willingness to trade in TTO or gamble in SG. Utilities for caregivers and non-caregivers were compared using t-tests and ANCOVA models. Results: There were 364 respondents including 106 caregivers (n = 30, 47, and 29 in Studies 1, 2, and 3) and 258 non-caregivers. Most caregivers were parents of dependent children (78.3%). Compared to non-caregivers, caregivers had more responses at the ceiling (i.e., utility = 0.95), indicating less willingness to trade time or gamble. All utilities were higher for caregivers than non-caregivers (mean utility difference between groups: 0.07 to 0.16 in Study 1 TTO; 0.03 to 0.17 in Study 1 SG; 0.06 to 0.10 in Study 2 TTO; 0.11 to 0.22 in Study 3 TTO). These differences were statistically significant for at least two health states in each study (p < 0.05). Results of sensitivity analyses with two caregiver subgroups (parents of dependent children and parents of any child regardless of whether the child was still dependent) followed the same pattern as results of the primary analysis. The parent subgroups were generally less willing to trade time or gamble (i.e., resulting in higher utility scores) than comparison groups of non-parents. Conclusions: Results indicate that caregiver status, including being a parent, influences responses in time trade-off health state valuation. Caregivers (i.e., predominantly parents) were less willing than non-caregivers to trade time, resulting in higher utility scores. This pattern was consistent across multiple health states in three studies. Standard gamble results followed similar patterns, but with less consistent differences between groups. It may be useful to consider parenting/caregiving status when collecting, interpreting, or using utility data because this demographic variable could influence results.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2011, The Oxford Handbook of Health Economics
[2]   THE TIME TRADE-OFF TECHNIQUE - HOW DO THE VALUATIONS OF BREAST-CANCER PATIENTS COMPARE TO THOSE OF OTHER GROUPS [J].
ASHBY, J ;
OHANLON, M ;
BUXTON, MJ .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1994, 3 (04) :257-265
[3]   Feasibility, validity and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: The visual analogue scale and the time trade-off [J].
Badia, X ;
Monserrat, S ;
Roset, M ;
Herdman, M .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1999, 8 (04) :303-310
[4]   Responses to standard gambles: are preferences 'well constructed'? [J].
Baker, R ;
Robinson, A .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2004, 13 (01) :37-48
[5]   Implications of spillover effects within the family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis [J].
Basu, A ;
Meltzer, D .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2005, 24 (04) :751-773
[6]  
Brazier J., 2007, MEASURING VALUING HL
[7]   Valuing health states for use in cost-effectiveness analysis [J].
Brazier, John .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2008, 26 (09) :769-779
[8]  
Bursztajn H, 1982, Med Decis Making, V2, P161, DOI 10.1177/0272989X8200200207
[9]   Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states [J].
Dolan, P .
MEDICAL CARE, 1997, 35 (11) :1095-1108
[10]   To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents? [J].
Dolan, P ;
Roberts, J .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2002, 54 (06) :919-929