Skip to main content
Log in

Valuing Health-Related Quality of Life

Issues and Controversies

  • Current Opinion
  • Valuing HR-QOL
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An important consideration when establishing priorities in healthcare is the likely effect that alternative allocations will have on the health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) of the relevant population. This paper considers some of the important issues and controversies surrounding the valuation of HR-QOL. It considers the theoretical and empirical evidence regarding 3 crucial questions: (i) what is to be valued?; (ii) how is it to be valued?; and (iii) who is to value it? Many important yet unresolved issues emerge and directions for future research are suggested. It is argued that this research agenda should have the gathering and analysis of qualitative data at its forefront.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jachuk SJ, Brierley H, Jachuk S, et al. The effect of hypertensive drugs on the quality of life. J R Coll Gen Pract 1982; 32 (235): 103–5

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ng YK. Welfare economics. London: MacMillan, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  3. Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Karlson G. Outcome measurement in economic evaluation. Health Econ 1996; 5: 279–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gold M, Siegal JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford (NY): Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years: utility theory, and health-years equivalents. Med Decis Making 1989; 9: 142–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pliskin JS, Shepard DS, Weinstein MC. Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper Res 1980; 28: 206–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Miyamoto JM, Eraker SA. Parameter estimates for a QALY utility model. Med Decis Making 1985; 5: 191–213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bleichrodt H, Wakker P, Johannesson M. Characterizing QALYs by risk neutrality. J Risk Uncertainty 1997; 15: 107–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lipscomb J. Value preferences for health: meaning measurement and use in program evaluation. In: Kane RL, Kane RA, editors. Values and long term care. Lexington (MA): Lexington Books, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  11. Donaldson C. Willingness to pay for publicly-provided goods: a possible measure of benefit. J Health Econ 1990; 9: 103–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women’s preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997; 6: 261–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behaviour. New York: Wiley, 1953

    Google Scholar 

  15. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989; 5: 559–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, et al. The measurement of patients’ values in medicine. Med Decis Making 1982; 2: 449–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schoemaker PJH. The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J Econ Lit 1982; 20: 529–63

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gafni A, Birch. Preferences for outcomes in economic evaluation: an economic approach to addressing economic problems. Soc Sci Med 1995; 40: 767–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Richardson J. Cost-utility analysis: what should be measured? Soc Sci Med 1994; 39 (1): 7–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mehrez A, Gafni A. The health-years equivalents: how to measure them using the standard gamble approach. Med Decis Making 1991; 11: 140–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Buckingham K, Drummond M. A theoretical and empirical classification of health valuation techniques. Health Economists Study Group (HESG) Conference; 1993 Jul 3-5; Strathclyde

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dolan P, Jones-Lee M. The time trade-off: a note on the effect of lifetime reallocation of consumption and discounting. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 731–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Meyerowitz BE. Postmastectomy coping strategies and quality of life. Health Psychol 1983; 2: 117–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cassileth BR, Lusk EJ, Strouse TB, et al. Psychosocial status in chronic illness: a comparative analysis of six diagnostic groups. N Engl J Med 1984; 311: 506–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Edgar A, Salek S, Shickle D, et al. The ethical QALY: ethical issues in healthcare resource allocations. Haslemere: Euromed Communications, 1998

  26. Richardson J, Hall J, Salkfeld G. The measurement of utility in multiphase health states. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12: 151–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kupperman M, Shiboski S, Feeny D, et al. Can preference scores for discrete states be used to derive preference scores for an entire path of events? Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health state preferences II: scaling methods. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 459–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ 1996; 15: 209–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socioecon Plann Sci 1976; 10: 129–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Reed WW, Herbers JE, Noel GL. Cholesterol lowering therapy: what patients expect in return. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8: 591–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 155–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wolfson AD, Sinclair AJ, Bombardier C, et al. Preference measurements for functional status in stroke patients: interrater and intertechnique comparisons. In: Kane RL, Kane RA, editors. Values and long term care. Lexington (MA): Lexicon Books, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  34. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berrick DM, et al. Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 1984; 4 (3): 315–29

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, et al. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time trade-off scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 82–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lenert LA, Cher DJ, Goldstein MK, et al. The effect of search procedures on utility elicitations. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 76–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hornberger JC, Redelmeier DA, Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45 (5): 505–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Loomes G. Disparities between health state measures: is there a rational explanation? In: Gerrard W, editor. The economics of rationality. London: Routledge, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  39. van Busschbach J. The validity of QALYs [dissertation]. Rotterdam: Erasmus University, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  40. Stiggelbout AM, Eijkemans MJC, Kiebert GM, et al. The ‘utility’ of the visual analog scale in medical decsion making and technology assessment: is it an alternative to the time trade off? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 2: 291–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analogue scale scores onto time trade-off and standard gamble utilities. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: 1519–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating scale valuations. Med Decis Mak 1997; 17: 208–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Froberg DG, Kane RL. Methodology for measuring health state preferences III: population and context effects. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 585–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31: 697–704

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996; 5: 141–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Dolan P. The effect of experience of illness on health state valuations. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 551–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R, et al. Descibing health states: methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care 1984; 22: 543–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Daly E, Gray A, Barlow D, et al. Measuring the impact of menopausal symptoms on quality of life. BMJ 1993; 307: 836–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Fitzpatrick R. A pragmatic defence of health status measures. Health Care Anal 1996; 4: 265–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Lockwood M. Quality of life and resource allocation. In: Bell M, Mendus S, editors. Philosophy and medical welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Dolan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dolan, P. Valuing Health-Related Quality of Life. Pharmacoeconomics 15, 119–127 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915020-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199915020-00001

Keywords

Navigation