Measuring & Valuing Health Status

Question 1

HUI-3

Answer 1

Consists of 8 domains, based on MAUT.
Using standard gamble (SG) as base
Pro: Has more domains & focused upon physical/clinical parameters compared to EQ-5D.

Question 2

EQ-5D

Answer 2

Consists of 5 domains, based on TTO.
Less domains, focused upon broader parameters.
Has ceiling effect, but can be combined with the SF36 by splitting groups and then determine the value.

Question 3

Standard Gamble (SG)

Answer 3

Theoretical foundation. Requires interviews (expensive). 
Produces utilities (highest) 
- Choose between 2 options
- Death as an outcome
- Tradeoff is required

Question 4

Time Trade Off (TTO)

Answer 4

Simple, looks for point of indifference between alternatives. 
No uncertainty/probability involved. 
- Choose between 2 options
- Death as an outcome
- Tradeoffs is required

Question 5

VAS method

Answer 5

Direct valuation techniques which have to specify the assessment on a line (no tradeoff). Stretches from 0 (death) to 1 (full health), tend to never choose extremes but at least there is no trade-off.

Question 6

Population size

Answer 6

1. Patients (valuation; higher utility, more experience)
2. General public (description; potential patients, no first hand experience)
   Note! Some patients are not able to answer questions (such as dementia)

Question 7

Krabbe on health states

Answer 7

5-level health states are much harder to think about than 3-level states.
Outcomes might also differ due to culture
Feasible to collect EQ5D data without assessment (choose A or B)

Question 8

Krabbe on health states

Answer 8

5-level health states are much harder to think about than 3-level states.
Outcomes might also differ due to culture
Feasible to collect EQ5D data without assessment (choose A or B)