Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-12T07:03:28.900Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost–utility analysis and otolaryngology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2014

D Hamilton ,
C Hulme ,
L Flood  and
S Powell
D Hamilton
Affiliation:
Northern Deanery, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
C Hulme
Affiliation:
Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, UK
L Flood
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
S Powell*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Steven Powell, ENT Dept, Freeman Hospital, High Heaton, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN, UK E-mail: steven.powell@nuth.nhs.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As providers of health care, we face increasing demand on our limited, indeed diminishing, resources. Economic appraisal of our interventions means assessing the trade-off between effectiveness, efficiency and equity. When rationing becomes inevitable, calculation of utility values is a valuable decision-making tool. This paper reviews objective measures of patient benefit, such as quality of life, and focuses on their application within otolaryngology.

Keywords

Utility TheoryQuality Of LifeCost AnalysisOtolaryngology

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 128 , Issue 2 , February 2014 , pp. 112 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Torrance, GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986;5:1–30Google Scholar
2National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods for Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, 2008Google Scholar
3Mooney, G. Economics, Medicine and Health Care, 3rd edn.Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003Google Scholar
4Fischer, DW. Utility models for multiple objective decisions: do they accurately represent human preferences? Decision Sciences 1979;10:451–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5van der Donk, J, Levendag, PC, Kuijpers, AJ, Roest, FH, Habbema, JD, Meeuwis, CA et al. Patient participation in clinical decision-making for treatment of T3 laryngeal cancer: a comparison of state and process utilities. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:2369–78Google Scholar
6Edwards, A, Elwyn, G. Shared Decision-Making in Health Care: Achieving Evidence-Based Patient Choice, 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009;xviii, 414Google Scholar
7Post, PN, Stiggelbout, AM, Wakker, PP. The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke 2001;32:1425–9Google Scholar
8Furlong, W, Feeny, D, Torrance, GW, Barr, R, Horsman, J. Guide to the Design and Development of Health-State Utility Instrumentation. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University, 1990Google Scholar
9Torrance, GW, Thomas, WH, Sackett, DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Research 1972;7:118–33Google ScholarPubMed
10Torrance, GW, Feeny, DH, Furlong, WJ, Barr, RD, Zhang, Y, Wang, Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Care 1996;34:702–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Stevens, KJ, McCabe, CJ, Brazier, JE. Mapping between Visual Analogue Scale and Standard Gamble data; results from the UK Health Utilities Index 2 valuation survey. Health Econ 2006;15:527–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Martin, AJ, Glasziou, PP, Simes, RJ, Lumley, T. A comparison of standard gamble, time trade-off, and adjusted time trade-off scores. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:137–47Google Scholar
13Dolan, P, Sutton, M. Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Social Sci Med 1997;44:1519–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Parkin, D, Devlin, N. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ 2006;15:653–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Cheng, AK, Rubin, HR, Powe, NR, Mellon, NK, Francis, HW, Niparko, JK. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA 2000;284:850–6Google Scholar
16Roberts, RA, Abrams, H, Sembach, MK, Lister, JJ, Gans, RE, Chisolm, TH. Utility measures of health-related quality of life in patients treated for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Ear Hear 2009;30:369–76Google Scholar
17de Boer, AGEM, van Lanschot, JJB, Stalmeier, PFM, van Sandick, JW, Hulscher, JBF, de Haes, JCJM et al. Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Qual Life Res 2004;13:311–20Google Scholar
18Brazier, J, Deverill, M, Green, C, Harper, R, Booth, A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999;3:i–iv, 1–164CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Arnesen, TM, Norheim, OF. Quantifying quality of life for economic analysis: time out for time tradeoff. Med Humanit 2003;29:81–6Google Scholar
20McNeil, BJ, Weichselbaum, R, Pauker, SG. Speech and survival: tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 1981;305:982–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Summerfield, AQ, Marshall, DH, Barton, GR, Bloor, KE. A cost-utility scenario analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128:1255–62Google Scholar
22Jalukar, V, Funk, GF, Christensen, AJ, Karnell, LH, Moran, PJ. Health states following head and neck cancer treatment: patient, health-care professional, and public perspectives. Head Neck 1998;20:600–83.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Gafni, A. The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv Res 1994;29:207–24Google ScholarPubMed
24McNamee, P, Glendinning, S, Shenfine, J, Steen, N, Griffin, SM, Bond, J. Chained time, trade-off and standard gamble, methods. Applications in oesophageal cancer. Eur J Health Econ 2004;5:81–6Google Scholar
25Hammerschmidt, T, Zeitler, H-P, Gulich, M, Leidl, R. A comparison of different strategies to collect standard gamble utilities. Med Decis Making 2004;24:493–503CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Juniper, EF, Thompson, AK, Roberts, JN. Can the standard gamble and rating scale be used to measure quality of life in rhinoconjunctivitis? Comparison with the RQLQ and SF-36. Allergy 2002;57:201–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Dolan, P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108Google Scholar
29Roberts, J, Dolan, P. To what extent do people prefer health states with higher values? A note on evidence from the EQ-5D valuation set. Health Econ 2004;13:733–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Hol, MKS, Spath, MA, Krabbe, PFM, van der Pouw, CTM, Snik, AFM, Cremers, CWRJ et al. . The bone-anchored hearing aid: quality-of-life assessment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:394–9Google Scholar
31Powell, SM, Tremlett, M, Bosman, DA. Quality of life of children with sleep-disordered breathing treated with adenotonsillectomy. J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:193–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Hopkins, C, Fairley, J, Yung, M, Hore, I, Balasubramaniam, S, Haggard, M. The 14-item Paediatric Throat Disorders Outcome Test: a valid, sensitive, reliable, parent-reported outcome measure for paediatric throat disorders. J Laryngol Otol 2010;124:306–14Google Scholar
33McNeil, ML, Gulliver, M, Morris, DP, Bance, M. Quality of life improvement for bone-anchored hearing aid users and their partners. J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:554–60Google Scholar
34Robinson, K, Gatehouse, S, Browning, GG. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:415–22Google Scholar
35Drummond, MF, Iglesias, CP, Cooper, NJ. Systematic reviews and economic evaluations conducted for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom: a game of two halves? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008;24:146–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Rowen, D, Brazier, J, Young, T, Gaugris, S, Craig, BM, King, MT et al. Deriving a preference-based measure for cancer using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health 2011;14:721–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37Rowen, D, Brazier, J, Roberts, J. Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: how reliable is the relationship? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009;7:27Google Scholar
38Monksfield, P, Jowett, S, Reid, A, Proops, D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the bone-anchored hearing device. Otol Neurotol 2011;32:1192–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Higgins, KM. What treatment for early-stage glottic carcinoma among adult patients: CO2 endolaryngeal laser excision versus standard fractionated external beam radiation is superior in terms of cost utility? Laryngoscope 2011;121:116–34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40Dedhia, RC, Smith, KJ, Johnson, JT, Roberts, M. The cost-effectiveness of community-based screening for oral cancer in high-risk males in the United States: a Markov decision analysis approach. Laryngoscope 2011;121:952–60Google Scholar
41Cooper, JD, Smith, KJ, Ritchey, AK. A cost-effectiveness analysis of coagulation testing prior to tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy in children. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2010;55:1153–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Lock, C, Wilson, J, Steen, N, Eccles, M, Mason, H, Carrie, S et al. North of England and Scotland Study of Tonsillectomy and Adeno-tonsillectomy in Children (NESSTAC): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with a parallel non-randomised preference study. Health Technol Assess 2010;14: iii–iv, 1–164Google ScholarPubMed
43Morrison, D. Management of patients with acoustic neuromas: a Markov decision analysis. Laryngoscope 2010;120:783–90Google Scholar
44Chao, TK, Chen, TH. Cost-effectiveness of hearing aids in the hearing-impaired elderly: a probabilistic approach. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:776–83Google Scholar
45Heiba, MH, Atef, A, Mosleh, M, Mohamed, R, El-Hamamsy, M. Comparison of peritonsillar infiltration of tramadol and lidocaine for the relief of post-tonsillectomy pain. J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:1138–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Zhu, ZH, Zheng, J, Ying, LY, Zhu, BW, Qian, J, Ma, ZX. Cross-over study of topical anaesthesia with tetracaine solution for transoral rigid laryngoscopy. J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:1150–4Google Scholar
47Haxel, BR, Bertz-Duffy, S, Fruth, K, Letzel, S, Mann, WJ, Muttray, A. Comparison of subjective olfaction ratings in patients with and without olfactory disorders. J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:692–7Google Scholar
48Andreou, N, Hadjisymeou, S, Panesar, J. Does tonsillectomy improve quality of life in adults? A systematic literature review. J Laryngol Otol 2013:127:332–8Google Scholar
49Maile, EJ, Youngs, R. Quality of life measures in otitis media. J Laryngol Otol 2013;127:442–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed