A pilot Internet "Value of Health" Panel: recruitment, participation and compliance\ud

Article English OPEN
Stein, K. ; Dyer, M. ; Crabb, T. ; Milne, R. ; Round, A. ; Ratcliffe, J. ; Brazier, J. (2006)
  • Publisher: BioMed Central

Objectives\ud \ud To pilot using a panel of members of the public to provide preference data via the Internet\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud A stratified random sample of members of the general public was recruited and familiarised with the standard gamble procedure using an Internet based tool. Health states were perdiodically presented in "sets" corresponding to different conditions, during the study. The following were described: Recruitment (proportion of people approached who were trained); Participation (a) the proportion of people trained who provided any preferences and (b) the proportion of panel members who contributed to each "set" of values; and Compliance (the proportion, per participant, of preference tasks which were completed). The influence of covariates on these outcomes was investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud A panel of 112 people was recruited. 23% of those approached (n = 5,320) responded to the invitation, and 24% of respondents (n = 1,215) were willing to participate (net = 5.5%). However, eventual recruitment rates, following training, were low (2.1% of those approached). Recruitment from areas of high socioeconomic deprivation and among ethnic minority communities was low. Eighteen sets of health state descriptions were considered over 14 months. 74% of panel members carried out at least one valuation task. People from areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation and unmarried people were less likely to participate. An average of 41% of panel members expressed preferences on each set of descriptions. Compliance ranged from 3% to 100%.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud It is feasible to establish a panel of members of the general public to express preferences on a wide range of health state descriptions using the Internet, although differential recruitment and attrition are important challenges. Particular attention to recruitment and retention in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation and among ethnic minority communities is necessary. Nevertheless, the panel approach to preference measurement using the Internet offers the potential to provide specific utility data in a responsive manner for use in economic evaluations and to address some of the outstanding methodological uncertainties in this field.\ud \ud
  • References (77)
    77 references, page 1 of 8

    1. Hutton J, Brown R: Use of economic evaluation in decisionmaking: What needs to change? Value Health 2002, 5:65-66.

    2. Neumann PJ: Why don't Americans use cost-effectiveness analysis? American Journal of Managed Care 2005, 10:308-312.

    3. Sonnad S, Greenberg D, Rosen A, Neumann P: Diffusion of published cost-utility analyses in the field of health policy and practice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2005, 21:399-402.

    4. Glennie J, Torrance GW, Baladi J, Berka C, Hubbard E, Menon D, Otten N, Riviera M: The revised Canadian Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1999, 15:459-468.

    5. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB: recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine consensus statement. JAMA 1996, 276:1253-1258.

    6. National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London, National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2003.

    7. Dolan P: Whose Preferences Count? Med Decis Making 1999, 19:482-486.

    8. Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Dolan P, Claxton K, McCabe C, O'Hagan T, Sculpher M, Tsuchyia A: Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states: whose well-being is it anyway? [04/3]. Sheffield, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield. Discussion Paper Series; 2004.

    9. Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W, Barr R, Zhang Y, Wang Q: Multiattribute utility functions for a comprehensive health status classification. Medical Care 1996, 34:702-722.

    10. Gafni A: Willingness to pay as a measure of benefits: relevant questions in the context of public decision making about health care programmes. Medical Care 1991, 29:1246-1252.

  • Metrics
    0
    views in OpenAIRE
    0
    views in local repository
    14
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    White Rose Research Online - IRUS-UK 0 14
Share - Bookmark