ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2023
What if 0 is not equal to 0? Inter-personal health utilities anchoring using the largest health gains.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prioritizing health technologies requires comparisons of improvements in longevity or quality of life (QoL), or both. For this purpose, value sets are constructed that contain weights assigned to health states based on societal preferences. I show that how this is typically done may distort the results by giving unjustifiably larger impact to individuals who prioritize improvements in QoL over longevity. The problem results from equating the utility differences between being dead and full health across people, ignoring the fact that interpersonal utility comparisons are forbidden (or at least problematic) in economics. I propose another approach: the numerical value of maximal health gain (either in longevity or QoL) is assumed to be equal across individuals, to remove the impact of the range of utilities differing between people. I test this approach using EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L utilities elicited in Poland for two modeling techniques: a simple econometric model and a Bayesian one that accounts for censoring. The proposed approach increases the utilities of the worst health state: from [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] in EQ-5D-5L and from about [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] in EQ-5D-3L. In the Bayesian approach, the impact is greater: from [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] for EQ-5D-5L and from [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] for EQ-5D-3L. I discuss some normative arguments why the proposed approach may be more justifiable for aggregating individual preferences for health outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.