[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v17y1997i1p21-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Validity of QALYs

Author

Listed:
  • Han Bleichrodt
  • Magnus Johannesson
Abstract
Pliskin, Shepard, and Weinstein identified three preference conditions that ensure that quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) represent preferences over gambles over chronic health profiles. This paper presents an experimental test of the descriptive validity of two of these preference assumptions: utility independence and constant proportional tradeoff. Eighty students at the Stockholm School of Economics and 92 students at Erasmus University Rotterdam participated in the experiment. The results of the ex periment support the descriptive validity of constant proportional tradeoff: both within groups and between groups constant proportional tradeoff could not be rejected. The results are less supportive of the descriptive validity of utility independence. Within- groups utility independence was rejected. Between-groups utility independence could not be rejected, but this may have been due to a lack of statistical power. Analysis of the individual responses revealed that without adjustment for imprecision of preference, 39 respondents (22.8%) satisfied constant proportional tradeoff. Twenty-three respon dents (13.4%) satisfied utility independence without adjustment for imprecision of pref erence. However, because of the relative unfamiliarity of the respondents with both the health states to be evaluated and the methods of health-state-utility measurement, it is likely that the respondents' preferences were imprecise. Adjusted for imprecision of preference, the upper estimates of the proportions of respondents who satisfied constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence, respectively, were 90.1% (155 respondents) and 75.6% (130 respondents). Pliskin et al. further derived that if an individual's preferences satisfy both constant proportional tradeoff and utility indepen dence, then these preferences can be represented by a more general, risk-adjusted QALY model. Without adjustment for imprecision of preference, ten respondents (5.8%) satisfied both constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence. Adjusted for imprecision of preference, the upper estimate of the proportion of respondents who satisfied both constant proportional tradeoff and utility independence was 68.6% (118 respondents). The results of this study indicate that constant proportional tradeoff holds approximately. The evidence is much weaker for utility independence, however. This has important implications for the use of QALY-type measures in medical decision making. Key words: QALYs; health utility measurements; medical decision making; individual preferences. (Med Decis Making 1996;17:21-32)

Suggested Citation

  • Han Bleichrodt & Magnus Johannesson, 1997. "The Validity of QALYs," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(1), pages 21-32, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:17:y:1997:i:1:p:21-32
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9701700103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X9701700103
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X9701700103?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bleichrodt, Han, 1995. "QALYs and HYEs: Under what conditions are they equivalent?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 17-37, May.
    2. Takeshi Amemiya, 1994. "Studies in Econometric Theory," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12.
    3. Dubourg, W R & Jones-Lee, M W & Loomes, Graham, 1994. "Imprecise Preferences and the WTP-WTA Disparity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 115-133, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bleichrodt, Han & Johannesson, Magnus, 1997. "Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: Experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 155-175, April.
    2. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2013. "A new axiomatic approach to the evaluation of population health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 515-523.
    3. Arts, Sara & Ong, Qiyan & Qiu, Jianying, 2020. "Measuring subjective decision confidence," MPRA Paper 117907, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Ulrich Schmidt & Stefan Traub, 2009. "An Experimental Investigation of the Disparity Between WTA and WTP for Lotteries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 229-262, March.
    5. Ebo Botchway & Jan Verpooten & Ine van der Beken & Justina Baršytė & Siegfried Dewitte, 2023. "The Endowment Effect in the Circular Economy: Do Broken Products Face Less of a Trading Barrier Than Intact or Repaired Ones?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-19, August.
    6. Milton C. Weinstein & Joseph S. Pliskin, 1996. "Perspectives on Healthy-years Equivalents," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 205-206, August.
    7. Carmen Herrero Blanco, 2001. "Individual Evidence Of Independence In Health Profiles Evaluation," Working Papers. Serie AD 2001-20, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    8. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & François-Charles Wolff & Jason Shogren & Pascal Gastineau, 2017. "Interval bidding in a distribution elicitation format," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(51), pages 5200-5211, November.
    9. Svedsater, Henrik, 2007. "Ambivalent statements in contingent valuation studies: inclusive response formats and giving respondents time to think," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(1), pages 1-17.
    10. Catherine Buron & Catherine Le Galès & Anne-Marie Fericelli, 1997. "L'indicateur QALYs à la lumière de la théorie de l'utilité espérée multi-attribut explicitement décomposée," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 129(3), pages 55-71.
    11. Arts, Sara & Ong, Qiyan & Qiu, Jianying, 2020. "Measuring subjective decision confidence," MPRA Paper 106811, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Liu Shi & Jianying Qiu & Jiangyan Li & Frank Bohn, 2024. "Consciously stochastic in preference reversals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 255-297, June.
    13. Christian Schlereth & Christine Eckert & Bernd Skiera, 2012. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate willingness-to-pay intervals," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 761-776, September.
    14. Whittington, Dale & Hua Wang, 2000. "Willingness to pay for air quality improvements in Sofia, Bulgaria," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2280, The World Bank.
    15. Olivier Chanel & Khaled Makhloufi & Mohammad Abu-Zaineh, 2017. "Can a Circular Payment Card Format Effectively Elicit Preferences? Evidence From a Survey on a Mandatory Health Insurance Scheme in Tunisia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 385-398, June.
    16. Gerdtham, U. -G. & Johannesson, M. & Lundberg, L. & Isacson, D., 1999. "The demand for health: results from new measures of health capital," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 501-521, September.
    17. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    18. Dennis Dittrich & Werner Guth & Boris Maciejovsky, 2005. "Overconfidence in investment decisions: An experimental approach," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 471-491.
    19. Christian A. Vossler & Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & Michael P. Welsh, 2003. "Payment Certainty in Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Responses: Results from a Field Validity Test," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 886-902, April.
    20. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Niche Fresh Produce across the States: Why Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for the Less Favorite?," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196901, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:17:y:1997:i:1:p:21-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.