Non-health Outcomes Research Articles

PP4 - Consumer Preferences for Precision Medicine Technologies: Evidence from A Discrete Choice Experiment

Challenges to precision medicine implementation include a lack of evidence on preference-based utility in context to clinical validity and uncertain health outcomes. We address these challenges by eliciting patients’ preferences for the types of health and non-health outcomes arising from genomic testing. We used a sequential mixed methods approach. Qualitative research (n=20 patients) identified the following attributes: genetic test type (disease risk, treatment prediction), probability of having a biomarker, expert agreement on changing care based on genomics, quality of life gains, life expectancy gains with statistical uncertainty, and cost. Discrete-choice methodology enumerated preferences with a view to predict uptake and estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP). The population was a probability-based sample of the U.S. public. Error component mixed logit modeling enabled analysis of realistic substitution patterns. We validate our results by predicting the uptake of a 21-gene breast cancer recurrence risk test and comparing that with real-world estimates. 1124 representative members of the public who had recently seen a doctor completed the survey. Respondent’s had disutility if there was low medical expert agreement, if there was no or little change in quality or quantity-of-life, and as out-of-pocket costs increased. Respondents distinguished between high and low degrees of statistical uncertainty. Average WTP to decrease uncertainty was between $147 and $223, with higher WTP associated with resolving uncertainty for life-year gains of 3 months and lower WTP for life-year gains of 4 years. The predicted uptake of the recurrence risk test was 21% in 2004. As clinical utility was demonstrated, predicted uptake was 45%. The correlation between our predictions and published uptake was 0.90. Preferences for genomic testing are significantly influenced by medical expert agreement and the degree of scientific uncertainty surrounding outcomes. These findings can be used to project a trajectory of demand as well as inform translational research.

The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: Understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment.

"Financial toxicity" has now become a familiar term used in the discussion of cancer drugs, and it is gaining traction in the literature given the high price of newer classes of therapies. However, as a phenomenon in the contemporary treatment and care of people with cancer, financial toxicity is not fully understood, with the discussion on mitigation mainly geared toward interventions at the health system level. Although important, health policy prescriptions take time before their intended results manifest, if they are implemented at all. They require corresponding strategies at the individual patient level. In this review, the authors discuss the nature of financial toxicity, defined as the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress of patients with cancer, as a result of treatments using innovative drugs and concomitant health services. They discuss coping with financial toxicity by patients and how maladaptive coping leads to poor health and nonhealth outcomes. They cover management strategies for oncologists, including having the difficult and urgent conversation about the cost and value of cancer treatment, availability of and access to resources, and assessment of financial toxicity as part of supportive care in the provision of comprehensive cancer care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:153-165. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Recommendations of the Second Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine: A Reference, Not a Rule Book

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), as noted by the Second Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (herein, the Second Panel), “provides a framework for comparing the relative value of different interventions, along with information that can help decision makers sort through alternatives and decide which ones best serve their programmatic and financial needs.”1 The CEA, as well as other methods of economic evaluation, such as budgetary impact analysis and cost–benefit analysis, can inform health policy decisions. In 1996, the first Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (herein, the First Panel) issued recommendations intended to improve the quality and comparability of CEA studies.2 The Second Panel has provided updated recommendations on the conduct, documentation, and reporting of CEAs with the same general intent.3 Notably, the Second Panel recommends inclusion of an impact inventory, which is a checklist of health and non-health outcomes and costs to be considered in CEAs. This checklist is a useful reference for considering various methodologic elements and inputs when conducting a CEA. However, the authors are concerned that the Second Panel’s recommendations might be interpreted by journals as prescriptive requirements for publishing CEAs. In particular, the long list of items that should be included in CEAs,3 according to the Second Panel, could easily be misread as itemized rules. This concern has been informally recognized in presentations in which Second Panel members have stated that they did not intend the recommendations to be prescriptive. It would be helpful if the Second Panel were to clarify, in print, that these recommendations are intended as a reference and not as a rule book. Two examples of the Second Panel’s recommendations for which exceptions from the recommendations may be warranted are highlighted below.

Cost-benefit and extended cost-effectiveness analysis of a comprehensive adolescent pregnancy prevention program in Zambia: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

BackgroundEarly marriages, pregnancies and births are the major cause of school drop-out among adolescent girls in sub-Saharan Africa. Birth complications are also one of the leading causes of death among adolescent girls. This paper outlines a protocol for a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and an extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA) of a comprehensive adolescent pregnancy prevention program in Zambia. It aims to estimate the expected costs, monetary and non-monetary benefits associated with health-related and non-health outcomes, as well as their distribution across populations with different standards of living.MethodsThe study will be conducted alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial, which is testing the hypothesis that economic support with or without community dialogue is an effective strategy for reducing adolescent childbearing rates. The CBA will estimate net benefits by comparing total costs with monetary benefits of health-related and non-health outcomes for each intervention package. The ECEA will estimate the costs of the intervention packages per unit health and non-health gain stratified by the standards of living. Cost data include program implementation costs, healthcare costs (i.e. costs associated with adolescent pregnancy and birth complications such as low birth weight, pre-term birth, eclampsia, medical abortion procedures and post-abortion complications) and costs of education and participation in community and youth club meetings. Monetary benefits are returns to education and averted healthcare costs. For the ECEA, health gains include reduced rate of adolescent childbirths and non-health gains include averted out-of-pocket expenditure and financial risk protection. The economic evaluations will be conducted from program and societal perspectives.DiscussionWhile the planned intervention is both comprehensive and expensive, it has the potential to produce substantial short-term and long-term health and non-health benefits. These benefits should be considered seriously when evaluating whether such a program can justify the required investments in a setting with scarce resources. The economic evaluations outlined in this paper will generate valuable information that can be used to guide large-scale implementation of programs to address the problem of the high prevalence of adolescent childbirth and school drop-outs in similar settings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02709967. Registered on 2 March 2016. ISRCTN, ISRCTN12727868. Registered on 4 March 2016.

Results of the First Steps study: a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) programme compared with usual care in improving outcomes for high-risk mothers and their children and preventing abuse

BackgroundFamily Nurse Partnership (FNP) is a home-based nurse home-visiting programme to support vulnerable parents. Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) has similar aims and materials and was demonstrated to be feasible in implementation evaluations.ObjectivesTo determine whether or not gFNP, compared with usual care, could reduce risk factors for maltreatment in a vulnerable group and be cost-effective.DesignA multisite randomised controlled parallel-group trial and prospective economic evaluation, with eligible women allocated (minimised by site and maternal age group) to gFNP or usual care.SettingCommunity locations in the UK.ParticipantsExpectant mothers aged < 20 years with one or more previous live births, or expectant mothers aged 20–24 years with no previous live births and with low educational qualifications (defined as General Certificate of Education at grade C or higher in neither mathematics nor English language or, if they had both, no more than four General Certificates of Education at grade C or higher).InterventionForty-four sessions of gFNP (14 during pregnancy and 30 in the first 12 months after birth) were offered to groups of between 8 and 12 women with similar expected delivery dates (the difference between the earliest and latest expected delivery date ranged from 8 to 10 weeks depending on the group) by two family nurses (FNs), one of whom had notified her intention to practise as a midwife.Main outcome measuresParenting was assessed by a self-report measure of parenting opinions, the Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory Version 2 (AAPI-2), and an objective measure of maternal sensitivity, the CARE-Index. Cost-effectiveness was primarily expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.Data sourcesInterviews with participants at baseline and when infants were aged 2, 6 and 12 months. Cost information from nurse weekly logs and other service delivery data.ResultsIn total, 166 women were enrolled (99 to the intervention group and 67 to the control group). Adjusting for site and maternal age group, the intention-to-treat analysis found no effect of gFNP on either of the primary outcomes. AAPI-2 total was 7.5/10 [standard error (SE) 0.1] in both arms [difference also adjusted for baseline 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.15 to 0.28;p = 0.50]. CARE-Index maternal sensitivity mean: intervention 4.0 (SE 0.3); control 4.7 (SE 0.4) (difference –0.76, 95% CI –1.67 to 0.13;p = 0.21). The sensitivity analyses supported the primary analyses. The probability that the gFNP intervention was cost-effective based on the QALY measure did not exceed 3%. However, in terms ofchangein AAPI-2 score (baseline to 12 months), the probability that gFNP was cost-effective reached 25.1%. A separate discrete choice experiment highlighted the value placed by both pregnant women and members of the general population on non-health outcomes that were not included in the QALY metric.LimitationsSlow recruitment resulted in smaller than ideal group sizes. In some cases, few or no sessions took place owing to low initial group size, and small groups may have contributed to attrition from the intervention. Exposure to gFNP sessions was below maximum for most group members, with only 58 of the 97 intervention participants receiving any sessions; FNs were experienced with FNP but were mainly new to delivering gFNP.ConclusionsThe trial does not support the delivery of gFNP as a means of reducing the risk of child abuse or neglect in this population.Future workA randomised controlled trial with modified eligibility to enable first-time mothers aged < 20 years to be included, and a modified recruitment strategy to enable faster identification of potential participants from antenatal medical records.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN78814904.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full inPublic Health Research; Vol. 5, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

OMERACT Quality-adjusted Life-years (QALY) Working Group: Do Current QALY Measures Capture What Matters to Patients?

To understand the limitations with current patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) used to generate quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) in rheumatology, and set a research agenda. Two activities were undertaken. The first was a scoping review of published studies that have used PROM to generate QALY in rheumatology between 2011 and 2016. The second was an interactive "eyeball test" exercise at Outcome Measures in Rheumatology 13 that compared subdomains of widely used generic PROM, as identified through the scoping review, to subdomains of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis Health Index (ASAS-HI) condition-specific PROM for ankylosing spondylitis. The scoping review included 39 studies. Five different PROM have been used to generate QALY in rheumatology; however, the EQ-5D and Short Form 6 Dimensions (SF-6D) were used most frequently (in 32 and 9 of included studies, respectively). Special interest group participants identified energy/drive and sleep as 2 key subdomains of the ASAS-HI instrument that may be missed by the EQ-5D, and sexual function as potentially missed by the SF-6D. Participants also expressed concerns that aspects of the process of care and non-health outcomes may be missed. Three ways of incorporating additional subdomains were discussed, including using an alternative generic PROM, modifying an existing generic PROM with "bolt-on" subdomain(s), and generating societal weights for a condition-specific PROM. Three priorities for future research were identified: understanding whether the EQ-5D and SF-6D identify what matters to patients with different rheumatic conditions, analyzing how much patients value process or non-health outcomes, and identifying which approaches to incorporating a greater number of subdomains into the QALY are being undertaken in other disease areas.

The Effect of In Utero Exposure to Asian Flu (1957-58) on Future Earnings

The “fetal origin hypothesis” predicts that the exposure to unfavorable environments early in life negatively affects future health and non-health (e.g. income) outcomes. This paper evaluates this theory by examining the effect of in utero exposure to influenza pandemic of 1957-58, the 2nd biggest of the 20th century, on the future earnings of exposed cohort. Using data from National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79), a difference-in-differences model is estimated for four demographic groups: white and non-white males and females. While the effect of this exposure on earnings of white individuals is statistically insignificant, the effect is both (economically and statistically) significant and contradictory for non-whites. Non-white females experienced a $6100 loss in their yearly wage while the wage of non-white males increased by about $11900.

A qualitative study on the views of experts regarding the incorporation of non-health outcomes into the economic evaluations of public health interventions.

BackgroundPublic health interventions can impact a broad number of outcomes, including both health and non-health outcomes (NHOs). However, although it is often acknowledged that it’s important to take NHOs into account in economic evaluation studies, in practice these are often neglected. To address this issue, our study investigated expert views regarding the incorporation of NHOs into the economic evaluations of public health interventions, by means of a qualitative study.MethodsA purposive sampling method was used to recruit the experts in the field of health economics and/or public health for this study. Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were held. After recording, the interviews were transcribed verbatim and entered in Nvivo. The data was analyzed using a thematic analysis to identify all important themes mentioned by the experts. Data collection and analysis was continued until saturation was reached. Multiple coding and validity checks were performed to further strengthen the rigour of our methodology.ResultsBased on the expert interviews, the following overarching themes were identified; Theme 1: NHOs on the individual level, direct social level and societal level. Theme 2: Pros and Cons regarding the development of a new instrument to measure NHOs. Theme 3: The most important requirements for a new questionnaire to be developed for measuring broader outcomes. Theme 4: Alternative methods which could be used for measuring and valuating NHOs in economic evaluations for public health.DiscussionOur research findings indicate that the importance of NHOs and the need to measure them are universally accepted. Most of the experts acknowledge the importance of measuring broader outcomes and support the development of a new instrument to measure these. The experts, who do not support the development of a new instrument, question its usefulness and feasibility; i.e., they are not sure whether it is possible to valuate NHOs. Furthermore, experts have strong and sometimes conflicting views on the specific requirements of a new instrument to be developed for measuring NHOs. They did not identify a single preferred alternative method for measurement and valuation.ConclusionsMost experts find a wide range of NHOs important and are in favor of developing a new instrument for identifying and measuring NHOs. Hence, an open discussion needs to be initiated with experts and other stakeholders about which steps need to be taken to move forward.

Exploring Outcomes to Consider in Economic Evaluations of Health Promotion Programs: What Broader Non-Health Outcomes Matter Most?

BackgroundAttention is increasing on the consideration of broader non-health outcomes in economic evaluations. It is unknown which non-health outcomes are valued as most relevant in the context of health promotion. The present study fills this gap by investigating the relative importance of non-health outcomes in a health promotion context.MethodWe investigated the relative importance of ten non-health outcomes of health promotion programs not commonly captured in QALYs. Preferences were elicited from a sample of the Dutch general public (N = 549) by means of a ranking task. These preferences were analyzed using Borda scores and rank-ordered logit models.ResultsThe relative order of preference (from most to least important) was: self-confidence, insights into own (un)healthy behavior, perceived life control, knowledge about a certain health problem, social support, relaxation, better educational achievements, increased labor participation and work productivity, social participation, and a reduction in criminal behavior. The weight given to a particular non-health outcome was affected by the demographic variables age, gender, income, and education. Furthermore, in an open question, respondents mentioned a number of other relevant non-health outcomes, which we classified into outcomes relevant for the individual, the direct social environment, and for society as a whole.ConclusionThe study provides valuable insights in the non-health outcomes that are considered as most important by the Dutch general population. Ideally, researchers should include the most important non-health outcomes in economic evaluations of health promotion.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0908-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Using "big data" to capture overall health status: properties and predictive value of a claims-based health risk score.

BackgroundInvestigators across many fields often struggle with how best to capture an individual’s overall health status, with options including both subjective and objective measures. With the increasing availability of “big data,” researchers can now take advantage of novel metrics of health status. These predictive algorithms were initially developed to forecast and manage expenditures, yet they represent an underutilized tool that could contribute significantly to health research. In this paper, we describe the properties and possible applications of one such “health risk score,” the DxCG Intelligence tool.MethodsWe link claims and administrative datasets on a cohort of U.S. workers during the period 1996–2011 (N = 14,161). We examine the risk score’s association with incident diagnoses of five disease conditions, and we link employee data with the National Death Index to characterize its relationship with mortality. We review prior studies documenting the risk score’s association with other health and non-health outcomes, including healthcare utilization, early retirement, and occupational injury.Results and ConclusionsWe find that the risk score is associated with outcomes across a variety of health and non-health domains. These examples demonstrate the broad applicability of this tool in multiple fields of research and illustrate its utility as a measure of overall health status for epidemiologists and other health researchers.

Better informing decision making with multiple outcomes cost-effectiveness analysis under uncertainty in cost-disutility space.

IntroductionComparing multiple, diverse outcomes with cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is important, yet challenging in areas like palliative care where domains are unamenable to integration with survival. Generic multi-attribute utility values exclude important domains and non-health outcomes, while partial analyses—where outcomes are considered separately, with their joint relationship under uncertainty ignored—lead to incorrect inference regarding preferred strategies. ObjectiveThe objective of this paper is to consider whether such decision making can be better informed with alternative presentation and summary measures, extending methods previously shown to have advantages in multiple strategy comparison.MethodsMultiple outcomes CEA of a home-based palliative care model (PEACH) relative to usual care is undertaken in cost disutility (CDU) space and compared with analysis on the cost-effectiveness plane. Summary measures developed for comparing strategies across potential threshold values for multiple outcomes include: expected net loss (ENL) planes quantifying differences in expected net benefit; the ENL contour identifying preferred strategies minimising ENL and their expected value of perfect information; and cost-effectiveness acceptability planes showing probability of strategies minimising ENL.ResultsConventional analysis suggests PEACH is cost-effective when the threshold value per additional day at home ( 1) exceeds $1,068 or dominated by usual care when only the proportion of home deaths is considered. In contrast, neither alternative dominate in CDU space where cost and outcomes are jointly considered, with the optimal strategy depending on threshold values. For example, PEACH minimises ENL when 1=$2,000 and 2=$2,000 (threshold value for dying at home), with a 51.6% chance of PEACH being cost-effective.ConclusionComparison in CDU space and associated summary measures have distinct advantages to multiple domain comparisons, aiding transparent and robust joint comparison of costs and multiple effects under uncertainty across potential threshold values for effect, better informing net benefit assessment and related reimbursement and research decisions.

An exploration of parents' preferences for foot care in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a possible role for the discrete choice experiment

BackgroundAn increased awareness of patients’ and parents’ care preferences regarding foot care is desirable from a clinical perspective as such information may be utilised to optimise care delivery. The aim of this study was to examine parents’ preferences for, and valuations of foot care and foot-related outcomes in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).MethodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) incorporating willingness-to-pay (WTP) questions was conducted by surveying 42 parents of children with JIA who were enrolled in a randomised-controlled trial of multidisciplinary foot care at a single UK paediatric rheumatology outpatients department. Attributes explored were: levels of pain; mobility; ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL); waiting time; referral route; and footwear. The DCE was administered at trial baseline. DCE data were analysed using a multinomial-logit-regression model to estimate preferences and relative importance of attributes of foot care. A stated-preference WTP question was presented to estimate parents’ monetary valuation of health and service improvements.ResultsEvery attribute in the DCE was statistically significant (p < 0.01) except that of cost (p = 0.118), suggesting that all attributes, except cost, have an impact on parents’ preferences for foot care for their child. The magnitudes of the coefficients indicate that the strength of preference for each attribute was (in descending order): improved ability to perform ADL, reductions in foot pain, improved mobility, improved ability to wear desired footwear, multidisciplinary foot care route, and reduced waiting time. Parents’ estimated mean annual WTP for a multidisciplinary foot care service was £1,119.05.ConclusionsIn terms of foot care service provision for children with JIA, parents appear to prefer improvements in health outcomes over non-health outcomes and service process attributes. Cost was relatively less important than other attributes suggesting that it does not appear to impact on parents’ preferences.

OP64 More than Obesity Prevention? Defining Outcomes in the Healthy Towns Programme in England

BackgroundIn 2008, £30 million was invested by UK Government in the Healthy Towns (HT) Programme in England. Nine urban areas were selected to develop and implement interventions to tackle the...

Consumer Preferences for Health and Nonhealth Outcomes of Health Promotion: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment

ObjectiveHealth promotion (HP) interventions have outcomes that go beyond health. Such broader nonhealth outcomes are usually neglected in economic evaluation studies. To allow for their consideration, insights are needed into the types of nonhealth outcomes that HP interventions produce and their relative importance compared with health outcomes. This study explored consumer preferences for health and nonhealth outcomes of HP in the context of lifestyle behavior change. MethodsA discrete choice experiment was conducted among participants in a lifestyle intervention (n = 132) and controls (n = 141). Respondents made 16 binary choices between situations that can be experienced after lifestyle behavior change. The situations were described by 10 attributes: future health state value, start point of future health state, life expectancy, clothing size above ideal, days with sufficient relaxation, endurance, experienced control over lifestyle choices, lifestyle improvement of partner and/or children, monetary cost per month, and time cost per week. ResultsWith the exception of “time cost per week” and “start point of future health state,” all attributes significantly determined consumer choices. Thus, both health and nonhealth outcomes affected consumer choice. Marginal rates of substitution between the price attribute and the other attributes revealed that the attributes “endurance,” “days with sufficient relaxation,” and “future health state value” had the greatest impact on consumer choices. The “life expectancy” attribute had a relatively low impact and for increases of less than 3 years, respondents were not willing to trade. ConclusionsHealth outcomes and nonhealth outcomes of lifestyle behavior change were both important to consumers in this study. Decision makers should respond to consumer preferences and consider nonhealth outcomes when deciding about HP interventions.

An update on the measurement of productivity losses due to rheumatoid diseases

Many health systems are interested in the impact of disease and interventions on non-health outcomes. Over the last 10 years, work productivity has become one of the most important topics. This study was conducted to review guidelines for economic evaluations worldwide to identify how views on the types of productivity costs to be included differ across jurisdictions and to review recent trials that have measured productivity losses to identify trends and compare consistency with guidelines from different jurisdictions. The guidelines from 28 countries were evaluated and only 12 required productivity costs to be included in the main analysis or the base case analysis. Little specific guidance was provided around the types of productivity costs to be included. Correspondingly, we identified only 10 trials that explicitly measured productivity outcomes and all were conducted after the year 2001. While there was a growth in the proportion of trials evaluating biologics to measure this outcome, it showed that fewer than 50% of even recent studies failed to measure or report productivity. Furthermore, most trials did not use a standard and validated questionnaire to measure all productivity loss components. In conclusion, whether the rationale for the exclusion of productivity impacts is that healthcare budgets should only be concerned with health impacts and ignore general social welfare impacts or whether productivity impacts should be ignored to maintain generational equity or whether the methodology of productivity measurement leads to imprecise estimates, the reality is that productivity impacts are real and to ignore them is tantamount to not being fully accountable to our citizenry.

Meeting the emerging challenge of breast and cervical cancer in low- and middle-income countries

Cancer, particularly when it affects women and reproductive health, epitomizes the complexities and inequities of the epidemiological challenge faced by low- and middle-income countries. Women in resource-poor settings face a double cancer burden: the backlog of preventable cancer, and the emerging challenge of cancers that cannot be prevented but whose impact could be dramatically reduced through early detection and treatment. Disparities in cancer incidence, mortality, and other health and non-health outcomes are exacerbated by gender inequity and compounded by discrimination and stigma. The combination of these barriers implies a multiplicative challenge for women who face cancer, particularly when the disease is associated with reproduction. The horizons of maternal and reproductive health should extend to include the life cycle of healthy changes and illness that are embodied in longer life for women. Numerous opportunities exist to strengthen health systems through sexual and reproductive and women and health platforms and better meet the challenge of cancer.

Ordinal preference elicitation methods in health economics and health services research: using discrete choice experiments and ranking methods

The predominant method of economic evaluation is cost-utility analysis, which uses cardinal preference elicitation methods, including the standard gamble and time trade-off. However, such approach is not suitable for understanding trade-offs between process attributes, non-health outcomes and health outcomes to evaluate current practices, develop new programmes and predict demand for services and products. Ordinal preference elicitation methods including discrete choice experiments and ranking methods are therefore commonly used in health economics and health service research. Cardinal methods have been criticized on the grounds of cognitive complexity, difficulty of administration, contamination by risk and preference attitudes, and potential violation of underlying assumptions. Ordinal methods have gained popularity because of reduced cognitive burden, lower degree of abstract reasoning, reduced measurement error, ease of administration and ability to use both health and non-health outcomes. The underlying assumptions of ordinal methods may be violated when respondents use cognitive shortcuts, or cannot comprehend the ordinal task or interpret attributes and levels, or use 'irrational' choice behaviour or refuse to trade-off certain attributes. CURRENT USE AND GROWING AREAS: Ordinal methods are commonly used to evaluate preference for attributes of health services, products, practices, interventions, policies and, more recently, to estimate utility weights. AREAS FOR ON-GOING RESEARCH: There is growing research on developing optimal designs, evaluating the rationalization process, using qualitative tools for developing ordinal methods, evaluating consistency with utility theory, appropriate statistical methods for analysis, generalizability of results and comparing ordinal methods against each other and with cardinal measures.

Exploring non-health outcomes of health promotion: The perspective of participants in a lifestyle behaviour change intervention

ObjectiveTo provide insights into health promotion outcomes that are not captured by conventional measures of health outcome used in economic evaluation studies, such as EQ5D based QALYs. MethodsTwelve semi-structured interviews and five focus group discussions were conducted with participants of a randomized controlled trial (n=52) evaluating the effectiveness of a theory-based lifestyle intervention in Dutch adults at risk for diabetes mellitus and/or cardiovascular disease. Transcripts were analysed by two independent researchers using a thematic analysis approach. ResultsIn total we identified twelve non-health outcome themes that were important from the participant perspective. Four of these were reported as direct outcomes of the lifestyle intervention and eight were reported as consequences of lifestyle behaviour change. Our findings also suggest that lifestyle behaviour change may have spillover effects to other people in the participants’ direct environment. ConclusionThis study provides evidence that in the context of lifestyle behaviour change EQ5D based QALYs capture health promotion outcomes only partially. More insights are needed into non-health outcomes and spillover effects produced by health promotion in other contexts and how participants and society value these. Methods to account for these outcomes within an economic evaluation framework need to be developed and tested.

Commentary: Using Stated Preference Discrete Choice Experiments to Elicit Women’s Preferences for Aspects of Maternity Care

Recent years have seen a welcome growth in the number of stated preference discrete choice experiments (SPDCEs) aimed at eliciting individual or community preferences for health interventions or aspects of health care (1). The technique is based on the premise that any ‘‘good,’’ in health care any intervention, drug therapy, treatment, or aspect of care, for example, can be described by its attributes (or characteristics) and that the extent to which an individual values a ‘‘good’’ depends on the explicit tradeoffs between these attributes. Alternative configurations of the attributes might describe the impact of the intervention or aspect of care on health outcomes, but might also describe nonhealth outcomes or the process by which the intervention or aspect of care is delivered. The technique also allows for the generation of marginal rates of substitution between the attributes, that is, the degree to which respondents are willing to trade one attribute for another. Indeed, if ‘‘cost’’ is included as an attribute, then marginal willingness-to-pay values can be inferred for changes in the levels of the remaining attributes. The results of such SPDCEs can then be used directly within cost benefit analyses (2).

Assessing Preferences Regarding Healthcare Interventions that Involve Non-Health Outcomes

Decision making in healthcare often involves decision alternatives that vary on different dimensions in conflicting ways, such as health benefits and costs. In such cases, it is not always easy to identify the best option, as a trade-off has to be made. In preference studies, patients evaluate health states or healthcare strategies reflecting this trade-off. A focus that is restricted to only health outcomes in decision making may be too narrow. Patients also derive utility, or experience disutility, from healthcare processes themselves. A range of techniques is available for eliciting valuations of patients for these processes and other non-health outcomes. At present, it is unclear to what extent, and how, clinical evaluation studies have taken into account non-health outcomes. We performed a systematic review of trade-off and valuation studies to assess the extent to which valuations of process and non-health outcomes have actually been elicited from patients, in what specialty areas, and what techniques were used.We identified 567 articles that addressed patients' preferences involving non-health outcomes. The main therapeutic fields were oncology (17%), gynecology/obstetrics (11%), pulmonology (11%), cardiology (7%), gastroenterology (6%), and infectious diseases (6%). There was an absolute increase from the early 1980s (a handful of studies published each year) to recent years (almost 100 publications per year). We noticed a strong increase in elicitation techniques aimed at identification of determinants of patients' preferences.The number of studies addressing preferences for medical dilemmas involving non-health outcomes is steadily increasing and covers the whole spectrum of health-related interventions across all medical fields. A diversification in application fields as well as in research methods was observed, reflecting a lack of standardization. There is a need for methodological standards and evidence-based criteria to evaluate the methodological quality and clinical validity of studies that address preferences for dilemmas involving non-health outcomes.