Cost-utility analysis when not everyone wants the treatment

Modeling split-choice bias

Richard Lilford, Alan Girling, David Braunholtz, Wayne Gillett, Jason Gordon, Celia A. Brown, Andrew Stevens

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Not all clinically eligible patients will necessarily accept a new treatment. Cost-utility analysis recognizes this by multiplying the mean incremental expected utility (EU) by the participation rate to obtain the utility gain per head. However, the mean EU gain over all patients in a defined clinical category is traditionally used as a proxy for the mean EU gain over the subpopulation of acceptors. Even for clinically identical patients, this may lead to a biased assessment of total benefit because a patient motivated to accept the new treatment is likely to value its effects more favorably than a patient who declines. An analysis that ignores this tendency will be biased toward an underestimate of true benefits of a health technology (HT). The extent of this bios is described within a quality-adjusted life year-based utility model for a population of clinically indistinguishable patients who differ with respect to the values that they place on the possible health outcomes of an HT The size of the bias is sensitive to the proportion of patients who accept the treatment, under both deterministic and probabilistic models of individual decision making. In all cases in which decision making is correlated with personal utility gain, the bias rises steeply as the proportion of acceptors declines.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)21-26
Number of pages6
JournalMedical Decision Making
Volume27
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2007

Keywords

  • cost-utility analysis
  • QALY
  • health technology assessment
  • split-choice bias
  • decision analysis
  • rationing
  • patient choice
  • colorectal-cancer
  • decision-analysis
  • screening-programs
  • prostate-cancer
  • Downs-syndrome
  • trade-off
  • EQ-5D
  • SF-6D
  • view

Cite this

Lilford, R., Girling, A., Braunholtz, D., Gillett, W., Gordon, J., Brown, C. A., & Stevens, A. (2007). Cost-utility analysis when not everyone wants the treatment: Modeling split-choice bias. Medical Decision Making, 27(1), 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X06297099

Cost-utility analysis when not everyone wants the treatment : Modeling split-choice bias. / Lilford, Richard; Girling, Alan; Braunholtz, David; Gillett, Wayne; Gordon, Jason; Brown, Celia A.; Stevens, Andrew.

In: Medical Decision Making, Vol. 27, No. 1, 01.2007, p. 21-26.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lilford, R, Girling, A, Braunholtz, D, Gillett, W, Gordon, J, Brown, CA & Stevens, A 2007, 'Cost-utility analysis when not everyone wants the treatment: Modeling split-choice bias', Medical Decision Making, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X06297099
Lilford, Richard ; Girling, Alan ; Braunholtz, David ; Gillett, Wayne ; Gordon, Jason ; Brown, Celia A. ; Stevens, Andrew. / Cost-utility analysis when not everyone wants the treatment : Modeling split-choice bias. In: Medical Decision Making. 2007 ; Vol. 27, No. 1. pp. 21-26.
@article{a56347656c5b43dfa609319b50bd14cf,
title = "Cost-utility analysis when not everyone wants the treatment: Modeling split-choice bias",
abstract = "Not all clinically eligible patients will necessarily accept a new treatment. Cost-utility analysis recognizes this by multiplying the mean incremental expected utility (EU) by the participation rate to obtain the utility gain per head. However, the mean EU gain over all patients in a defined clinical category is traditionally used as a proxy for the mean EU gain over the subpopulation of acceptors. Even for clinically identical patients, this may lead to a biased assessment of total benefit because a patient motivated to accept the new treatment is likely to value its effects more favorably than a patient who declines. An analysis that ignores this tendency will be biased toward an underestimate of true benefits of a health technology (HT). The extent of this bios is described within a quality-adjusted life year-based utility model for a population of clinically indistinguishable patients who differ with respect to the values that they place on the possible health outcomes of an HT The size of the bias is sensitive to the proportion of patients who accept the treatment, under both deterministic and probabilistic models of individual decision making. In all cases in which decision making is correlated with personal utility gain, the bias rises steeply as the proportion of acceptors declines.",
keywords = "cost-utility analysis, QALY, health technology assessment, split-choice bias, decision analysis, rationing, patient choice, colorectal-cancer, decision-analysis, screening-programs, prostate-cancer, Downs-syndrome, trade-off, EQ-5D, SF-6D, view",
author = "Richard Lilford and Alan Girling and David Braunholtz and Wayne Gillett and Jason Gordon and Brown, {Celia A.} and Andrew Stevens",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0272989X06297099",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "21--26",
journal = "Medical Decision Making",
issn = "0272-989X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-utility analysis when not everyone wants the treatment

T2 - Modeling split-choice bias

AU - Lilford, Richard

AU - Girling, Alan

AU - Braunholtz, David

AU - Gillett, Wayne

AU - Gordon, Jason

AU - Brown, Celia A.

AU - Stevens, Andrew

PY - 2007/1

Y1 - 2007/1

N2 - Not all clinically eligible patients will necessarily accept a new treatment. Cost-utility analysis recognizes this by multiplying the mean incremental expected utility (EU) by the participation rate to obtain the utility gain per head. However, the mean EU gain over all patients in a defined clinical category is traditionally used as a proxy for the mean EU gain over the subpopulation of acceptors. Even for clinically identical patients, this may lead to a biased assessment of total benefit because a patient motivated to accept the new treatment is likely to value its effects more favorably than a patient who declines. An analysis that ignores this tendency will be biased toward an underestimate of true benefits of a health technology (HT). The extent of this bios is described within a quality-adjusted life year-based utility model for a population of clinically indistinguishable patients who differ with respect to the values that they place on the possible health outcomes of an HT The size of the bias is sensitive to the proportion of patients who accept the treatment, under both deterministic and probabilistic models of individual decision making. In all cases in which decision making is correlated with personal utility gain, the bias rises steeply as the proportion of acceptors declines.

AB - Not all clinically eligible patients will necessarily accept a new treatment. Cost-utility analysis recognizes this by multiplying the mean incremental expected utility (EU) by the participation rate to obtain the utility gain per head. However, the mean EU gain over all patients in a defined clinical category is traditionally used as a proxy for the mean EU gain over the subpopulation of acceptors. Even for clinically identical patients, this may lead to a biased assessment of total benefit because a patient motivated to accept the new treatment is likely to value its effects more favorably than a patient who declines. An analysis that ignores this tendency will be biased toward an underestimate of true benefits of a health technology (HT). The extent of this bios is described within a quality-adjusted life year-based utility model for a population of clinically indistinguishable patients who differ with respect to the values that they place on the possible health outcomes of an HT The size of the bias is sensitive to the proportion of patients who accept the treatment, under both deterministic and probabilistic models of individual decision making. In all cases in which decision making is correlated with personal utility gain, the bias rises steeply as the proportion of acceptors declines.

KW - cost-utility analysis

KW - QALY

KW - health technology assessment

KW - split-choice bias

KW - decision analysis

KW - rationing

KW - patient choice

KW - colorectal-cancer

KW - decision-analysis

KW - screening-programs

KW - prostate-cancer

KW - Downs-syndrome

KW - trade-off

KW - EQ-5D

KW - SF-6D

KW - view

U2 - 10.1177/0272989X06297099

DO - 10.1177/0272989X06297099

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 21

EP - 26

JO - Medical Decision Making

JF - Medical Decision Making

SN - 0272-989X

IS - 1

ER -