↓ Skip to main content

Constructing Indirect Utility Models: Some Observations on the Principles and Practice of Mapping to Obtain Health State Utilities

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Constructing Indirect Utility Models: Some Observations on the Principles and Practice of Mapping to Obtain Health State Utilities
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, July 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40273-013-0071-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher McCabe, Richard Edlin, David Meads, Chantelle Brown, Samer Kharroubi

Abstract

The construction of mapping models is an increasingly popular mechanism for obtaining health state utility data to inform economic evaluations in health care. There is great variation in the sophistication of the methods utilized but to date very little discussion of the appropriate theoretical framework to guide the design and evaluation of these models. In this paper, we argue that recognizing mapping models as a form of indirect health state valuation allows the use of the framework described by Dolan for the measurement of social preferences over health. Using this framework, we identify substantial concerns with the method for valuing health states that is implicit in indirect utility models (IUMs), the conflation of two sets of respondents' values in such models, and the lack of a structured and statistically reasonable approach to choosing which states to value and how many observations per state to require in the estimation dataset. We also identify additional statistical challenges associated with clustering and censoring in the datasets for IUMs, additional to those attributable to the descriptive systems, and a potentially significant problem with the systematic understatement of uncertainty in predictions from IUMs. Whilst recognizing that IUMs appear to meet the needs of reimbursement organizations that use quality-adjusted life years in their appraisal processes, we argue that current proposed quality standards are inadequate and that IUMs are neither robust nor appropriate mechanisms for estimating utilities for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 29 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 26%
Student > Master 8 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Psychology 4 13%
Engineering 3 10%
Mathematics 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 July 2013.
All research outputs
#18,341,369
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,598
of 1,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,792
of 194,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#11
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,814 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 194,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.