Skip to Content
Interactive Textbook on Clinical Symptom Research Logo


Home Button

Assessing Desirability of Outcome States
Author Biographies
Introduction
Common Health Status Measures
Preference-Based Measures
Direct Utility Elicitation
Issues with Utiliy Assessment
How are Utilities Used?
Utility and Health Status
Utility and Sociodemographic Factors
Computerized Utility Assessment
Currently selected section: Catalogs of Utilities
Case Studies
Conclusions


Chapter 24: Assessing Desirability of Outcome Stats: Catalogs of Utilities
        

An alternative to obtaining utilities directly from patients is to obtain them from the literature. Published utilities are the usual source for the base case analysis of decision models. Because of the ever-increasing number of journal articles reporting utilities, it is not possible to provide here a comprehensive list of diseases for which utilities have been published.

Some investigators have attempted to take steps toward developing a national repository of quality-of-life weights to aid cost-effectiveness analysis. Tengs and Wallace gathered 1,000 health-related quality of life estimates from published sources (Tengs and Wallace, 2000). They noted that there was considerable variation in the weights assessed for the same health state by different studies.

The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis group has reviewed a large number of published cost-utility studies and developed a catalog of preference scores (Bell, Chapman et al. 2001), available on a website: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cearegistry/.

The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study provides a catalog of health status and utilities, grouped by various disease conditions (Fryback, Dasbach et al. 1993). Interviews conducted with 1356 subjects, ages 43-84, provided data on SF-36, QWB, and a TTO measure of utility for current health. The Beaver Dam study provides extensive and valuable data on the self-reported health status and the utility for current health of a general adult population in Wisconsin, and a quantitative link between scales (Fryback, Lawrence et al., 1997). The Beaver Dam utilities are useful for many other studies; however, this source has some limitations. It provides utilities by disease status rather than by detailed functional status and so it does not, for example, provide utilities necessary for study of the frail elderly. Additionally, the study population was 99.6% white.

Investigators using published utilities should consider the quality of the utility elicitation. As with application of clinical trial evidence and other forms of evidence, investigators using published utilities should consider the applicability of the published utilities to the task or the population under consideration. For example, very few published utility surveys have included large numbers of individuals from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds.

Page 12 of 14
Previous Section