Department of Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Value Health. 2010 Mar-Apr;13(2):306-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00610.x. Epub 2009 Sep 10.
To obtain quality-adjusted life-years, different respondent groups, such as patients or the general public, may be asked to value health states. Until now, it remains unclear if the respondent group has an influence on the values obtained. We assessed this issue through meta-analysis.
A literature search was performed for studies reporting valuations given by patients and nonpatients. Studies using indirect utility instruments were excluded.
From 30 eligible studies, 40 estimators were retrieved revealing a difference between respondent group (Cohen's d=0.20, P<0.01). When elicitation methods were analyzed separately, patients gave higher valuations than nonpatients using the time trade-off (TTO) (N=25, unstandardized d=0.05, P<0.05) and the visual analog scale (VAS) (N=22, unstandardized d=0.04, P<0.05). When the standard gamble was used, no difference was seen (N=24, unstandardized d=0.01, P=0.70).
In contrast with Dolders et al., our results show that patients give higher valuations than members of the general public. For future cost-utility analyses, researchers should be aware of the differential effects of respondent group for the elicitation methods TTO and VAS.
为了获得质量调整生命年，不同的受访者群体，如患者或普通公众，可能被要求对健康状况进行评估。到目前为止，仍不清楚受访者群体是否会对获得的价值产生影响。我们通过荟萃分析来评估这个问题。
对报告患者和非患者评估值的研究进行了文献检索。排除使用间接效用工具的研究。
从 30 项合格研究中，共检索到 40 个估算值，显示出受访者群体之间的差异（Cohen's d=0.20，P<0.01）。当分别分析 elicitation 方法时，患者使用时间权衡法（TTO）（N=25，未标准化 d=0.05，P<0.05）和视觉模拟量表（VAS）（N=22，未标准化 d=0.04，P<0.05）的评估值高于非患者。当使用标准赌博法时，未观察到差异（N=24，未标准化 d=0.01，P=0.70）。
与 Dolders 等人的研究结果相反，我们的结果表明患者的评估值高于普通公众。对于未来的成本效用分析，研究人员应该意识到受访者群体对 TTO 和 VAS 评估方法的不同影响。
