time trade-off; willingness to pay; womac; osteoarthritis
Abstract :
[en] Objective. To establish whether health utility (time trade-off, TTO) and willingness to pay (WTP) values reflect clinical health outcome as evaluated by the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) in hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. One hundred twenty-eight patients with OA attending a specialized arthritis clinic were interviewed about their socioeconomic characteristics and administered the TTO technique and the WOMAC. Their WTP for 2 hypothetical anti-osteoarthritic drugs was also investigated: the first drug was said to provide a significant improvement in WOMAC dimensions and the second a complete cure of the disease. WTP was elicited by both discrete-choice and bidding game methods. Results. Answer rates were 89.1% for TTO, 98.4% for discrete-choice WTP for both scenarios, and 89.8% and 85.2% for bidding game WTP in the relief and the cure scenario, respectively. The mean TTO utility value was 0.84 (standard deviation 0.20). In discrete-choice, those accepting the bid had higher monthly income (euro 1536.5 vs euro 1060. 1, p < 0.001, for the relief scenario and euro 1449.3 vs euro 1071.6, p < 0.001, for the cure scenario). With the bidding game format, WTP was positively correlated with income in both scenarios (r = 0.56, r = 0.55, p < 0.001). WTP measures differed equally between education and socioeconomic groups with those in favored groups consistently reporting higher WTP (Kruskal-Wallis tests statistics ranging from p < 0.01 to p < 0.001). Except for stiffness, WOMAC dimensions were correlated in the expected direction with TTO values (r = -0.27, p < 0.01 for pain and r = -0.36, r = -0.34, p < 0.001 for physical function and total score, respectively). Conclusion. Whereas they showed good feasibility, WTP measures poorly reflected clinical condition and were mainly related to economic status and ability to pay. TTO was correlated with the WOMAC dimensions and may be considered closer to clinical situations than WTP. However, concern arises regarding the homogeneity of the study sample in terms of clinical severity, which may have precluded the identification of a relationship between WTP and clinical status.
Disciplines :
Rheumatology
Author, co-author :
Ethgen, Olivier ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Santé publique : aspects spécifiques
Tancredi, Annalisa ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Ecole de santé publique
Lejeune, Emmanuelle ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > DIALYSE (SN +6)
Kvasz, Angela ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Médecine de l'appareil locomoteur
Zegels, Brigitte ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Epidémiologie et santé publique
Reginster, Jean-Yves ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Epidémiologie et santé publique
Language :
English
Title :
Do utility values and willingness to pay suitably reflect health outcome in hip and knee osteoarthritis? A comparative analysis with the WOMAC index
Watson M. Management of patients with osteoarthritis. Pharm J 1997;259:296-7.
Reginster JY. The prevalence and burden of arthritis. Rheumatology Oxford 2002;41 Suppl 1:3-6.
Lawrence RC, Helmick CG, Arnett FC, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal disorders in the United States. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:778-99.
Kelsey JL, Hochberg MC. Epidemiology of chronic musculoskeletal disorders. Ann Rev Public health 1988;9:379-401.
Felson DT, Zhang Y. An update on the epidemiology of knee and hip osteoarthritis with a view to prevention. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:1343-55.
Badley EM, Wang PP. Arthritis and the aging population: projections of arthritis prevalence in Canada 1991 to 2031. J Rheumatol 1998;25:138-44.
Lanes SF, Lanza LL, Radensky PW, et al. Resource utilization and cost of care for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis in a management care setting: the importance of drug and surgery costs. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:1475-81.
Badley EM. The effects of osteoarthritis on disability and health care use in Canada. J Rheumatol 1995;22 Suppl 43:19-22.
MacLean CH, Knight K, Brook RH, et al. Costs attributable to osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 1998;25:2213-8.
Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989;27 Suppl 3:S217-32.
Bellamy N. WOMAC Osteoarthritis index. A user's guide. London, Canada: University of Western Ontario; 1995.
Zhao SZ, McMillen JI, Markenson JA, et al. Evaluation of the functional status aspects of health-related quality of life of patients with osteoarthritis treated with celecoxib. Pharmacotherapy 1999;19:1269-78.
Ehrich EW, Bolognese JA, Watson DJ, et al. Effect of Rofecoxib therapy on measures of health-related quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis. Am J Managed Care 2001;7:609-16.
Reginster JY, Deroisy R, Rovati LC, et al. Long-term effects of glucosamine sulphate on osteoarthritis progression: a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Lancet 2001;357:251-6.
Rorareck CH, Bourne RB, Laupacis A, et al. A double-blind study of 250 cases comparing cemented with cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1994;298:156-64.
Kreibich DN, Vaz M, Bourne RB, et al. What is the best way of assessing outcome after total knee replacement. Clin Orthop 1996;331:221-5.
Fortin PR, Clarke AE, Joseph L, et al. Outcomes of total hip and knee replacement. Preoperative functional status predicts outcomes at six months after surgery. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:1722-8.
Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for economic evaluation of health care programs. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications; 1987.
Blumenschein K, Johannesson M. Incorporating quality of life changes into economic evaluations of health care: an overview. Health Policy 1996;36:155-66.
Jonsson B. Quality of life and health economics: where is the link? Scand J Gastroenterol 1996;31 Suppl 221:33-6.
von Neumann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1953.
Torrance GW, Thomas WM, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Res 1972;7:118-33.
Bala MV, Mauskopf JA, Wood LL. Willingness to pay as a measure of health benefits. Pharmacoeconomics 1999;15:9-18.
Gafni A. Willingness to pay in the context of an economic evaluation of healthcare programs: theory and practice. Am J Managed Care 1997;3 Suppl:S21-32.
Hanneman WM. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Economic Perspectives 1994;8:19-43.
Berwick DM, Weinstein MC. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Med Care 1985; 23:881-93.
Johannesson M, Johansson PO, Jönsson B. Economic evaluation of drug therapy. A review of the contingent valuation method. Pharmacoeconomics 1992;1:325-37.
Hyland ME. Quality of life measures as providers of information on value-for-money of health interventions. Comparison and recommendations for practice. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;11:19-31.
Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, et al. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis Rheum 1986;29:1039-49.
Altman R, Alarcon GC, Appelrouth D, et al. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum 1991;34:505-14.
Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988;15:1833-40.
Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically-important patient-relevant outcomes following total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. J Orthop Rheumatol 1988;1:95-108.
Bellamy N, Kean WF, Buchanan WW, Gerecz-Simon E, Campbell J. Double blind randomized controlled trial of sodium meclofenamate (Meclomen) and diclofenac sodium (Voltaren): post validation reapplication of the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol 1992;19:153-9.
Direction de la Surveillance de la Santé. Indicateurs de santé 1996. Brussels: Ministère de la Communauté Française. Direction de la Surveillance de la Santé; 1996:35.
Johannesson M, Johansson PO, Kristrom B, et al. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy: further results. J Health Econ 1993;12:95-108.
Johansson PO. Evaluating health risks: an economic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
Quataert P, Van Oyen H, Tafforeau J, et al. Health Interview Survey, 1997. Protocol for the selection of households and respondents. S.P.H/EPISERIE No. 12. Brussels: Scientific Institute of Public Health; 1997.
Gafni A. Using willingness-to-pay as a measure of benefits: what is the relevant question to ask in the context of public decision making? Med Dec Making 1991;29:1246-52.
Thompson MS, Leighton Read J, Liang M. Feasibility of willingness-to-pay measurement in chronic arthritis. Med Dec Making 1984;4:195-215.
Johannesson M, Jönsson B, Karlsson G. Outcome measurement in economic evaluation. Health Econ 1996;5:279-96.
Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating-scale valuations. Med Dec Making 1997;17:208-16.
Cross MJ, March LM, Lapsley HM, et al. Determinants of willingness to pay for hip and knee joint replacement surgery for osteoarthritis. Rheumatol 2000;39:1242-8.
Blumenschein K, Johannesson M. Relationship between quality of life instruments, health state utilities, and willingness to pay in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1998;80:189-94.
Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Silverdahl M, et al. Quality of life, health state utilities and willingness to pay with psoriasis and atopic eczema. Br J Dermatol 1999;141:1067-75.
Bosch JL, Hunink MGM. The relationship between descriptive and valuational quality-of-life measures in patients with intermittent claudication. Med Dec Making 1996;16:217-25.
O'Brien B, Viramontes JL. Willingness to pay: a valid and reliable measure of health state preference? Med Dec Making 1994; 14:289-97.
Bala MV, Wood LL, Zarkin GA, et al. Valuing outcomes in health care: A comparison of willingness to pay and quality-adjusted life years. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:667-76.
Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP. Relationship between utility values and willingness to pay in patients undergoing orthognathic treatment. Community Dental Health 2000;17:92-6.
Thompson MS. Willingness to pay and accept risks to cure chronic disease. Am J Public Health 1986;76:392-6.
Rothfuss J, Mau W, Zeider H, et al. Socioeconomic evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: a literature review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1997;25:771-9.
Ferraz MB, Maetzel A, Bombardier C. A summary of economic evaluations published in the field of rheumatology and related disciplines. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:1587-93.
Slothuus U, Brooks RG. Willingness to pay in arthritis: a Danish contribution. Rheumatol 2000;39:791-9.
Liljas B, Lindgren B. On individual preferences and aggregation in economic evaluation in healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics 2001;19:323-35.
Johannesson M, Jönsson B. Economic evaluation in health care: Is there a role for cost-benefit analysis. Health Policy 1991;17:1-23.
Burrows C, Brown K. Are any numbers better than no numbers? The sorry state of willingness-to-pay and some major methodological shortcomings. Australian Health Rev 1992; 15:135-44.
Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care: does "ability to pay" preclude the use of "willingness to pay"? Soc Sci Med 1999;49:551-63.
