Measuring and valuing mental health for use in economic evaluation

被引:47
作者
Brazier, John [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res, Sheffield S1 4DA, S Yorkshire, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
D O I
10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008015
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
This article presents research undertaken as part of a wider programme of work concerned with measuring and health and wellbeing for economic evaluation. The focus is on developing quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in mental health, but the issues are common across all areas of health care. The article begins by reviewing the issues of what should be valued (health or broader notions of wellbeing), how mental health and wellbeing should be described, how mental health states should be valued and who should do the valuing. The article presents four pieces of work. The first is a re-analysis of the ONS Psychiatric Morbidity 2000 Survey to provide evidence on the relevance of generic measures across different mental health disorders. It found that common mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression, had a significant impact on the generic preference-based measure of health in the SF-6D, but psychosis and personality disorders did not. The article then presents two studies using the ratings of people experiencing the states of health. Both studies found that people experiencing different health states gave mental health greater weight than physical health compared to members of the general public trying to imagine the health states. Finally, the article presents a study developing a condition-specific preference-based measure for calculating QALYs from an existing measure of mental health, the CORE-OM, using modern psychometric methods to construct health states amenable to valuation. It also considers a proposal to develop an entirely new QALY measure in mental health. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy Vol 13 Suppl 3, 2008: 70-75 (C) The Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd 2008
引用
收藏
页码:70 / 75
页数:6
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]   Service profiling and outcomes benchmarking using the CORE-OM: Toward practice-based evidence in the psychological therapies [J].
Barkham, M ;
Margison, F ;
Leach, C ;
Lucock, M ;
Mellor-Clark, J ;
Evans, C ;
Benson, L ;
Connell, J ;
Audin, K ;
McGrath, G .
JOURNAL OF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2001, 69 (02) :184-196
[2]   Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: Results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D [J].
Barton G.R. ;
Bankart J. ;
Davis A.C. ;
Summerfield Q.A. .
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2004, 3 (2) :103-105
[3]   A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities [J].
Bleichrodt, H .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2002, 11 (05) :447-456
[4]   The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36 [J].
Brazier, J ;
Roberts, J ;
Deverill, M .
JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2002, 21 (02) :271-292
[5]  
Brazier J, 2006, HEALTH TECHNOL ASSES, V10, P1
[6]  
Brazier J., 2007, MEASURING VALUING HL
[7]   The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12 [J].
Brazier, JE ;
Roberts, J .
MEDICAL CARE, 2004, 42 (09) :851-859
[8]  
Brazier JE, 2006, 69 HLTH EC STUD GROU
[9]   Estimation of a preference-based index from a condition-specific measure: The King's Health Questionnaire [J].
Brazier, John ;
Czoski-Murray, Carolyn ;
Roberts, Jennifer ;
Brown, Martin ;
Symonds, Tara ;
Kelleher, Con .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2008, 28 (01) :113-126
[10]   Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? [J].
Brazier J. ;
Akehurst R. ;
Brennan A. ;
Dolan P. ;
Claxton K. ;
McCabe C. ;
Sculpher M. ;
Tsuchyia A. .
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2005, 4 (4) :201-208