Cargando…

Disability weights from a household survey in a low socio-economic setting: how does it compare to the global burden of disease 2010 study?

BACKGROUND: The global burden of disease (GBD) 2010 study used a universal set of disability weights to estimate disability adjusted life years (DALYs) by country. However, it is not clear whether these weights can be applied universally in calculating DALYs to inform local decision-making. This stu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Neethling, Ian, Jelsma, Jennifer, Ramma, Lebogang, Schneider, Helen, Bradshaw, Debbie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Co-Action Publishing 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4990533/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27539894
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.31754
_version_ 1782448711105773568
author Neethling, Ian
Jelsma, Jennifer
Ramma, Lebogang
Schneider, Helen
Bradshaw, Debbie
author_facet Neethling, Ian
Jelsma, Jennifer
Ramma, Lebogang
Schneider, Helen
Bradshaw, Debbie
author_sort Neethling, Ian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The global burden of disease (GBD) 2010 study used a universal set of disability weights to estimate disability adjusted life years (DALYs) by country. However, it is not clear whether these weights can be applied universally in calculating DALYs to inform local decision-making. This study derived disability weights for a resource-constrained community in Cape Town, South Africa, and interrogated whether the GBD 2010 disability weights necessarily represent the preferences of economically disadvantaged communities. DESIGN: A household survey was conducted in Lavender Hill, Cape Town, to assess the health state preferences of the general public. The responses from a paired comparison valuation method were assessed using a probit regression. The probit coefficients were anchored onto the 0 to 1 disability weight scale by running a lowess regression on the GBD 2010 disability weights and interpolating the coefficients between the upper and lower limit of the smoothed disability weights. RESULTS: Heroin and opioid dependence had the highest disability weight of 0.630, whereas intellectual disability had the lowest (0.040). Untreated injuries ranked higher than severe mental disorders. There were some counterintuitive results, such as moderate (15th) and severe vision impairment (16th) ranking higher than blindness (20th). A moderate correlation between the disability weights of the local study and those of the GBD 2010 study was observed (R(2)=0.440, p<0.05). This indicates that there was a relationship, although some conditions, such as untreated fracture of the radius or ulna, showed large variability in disability weights (0.488 in local study and 0.043 in GBD 2010). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents seemed to value physical mobility higher than cognitive functioning, which is in contrast to the GBD 2010 study. This study shows that not all health state preferences are universal. Studies estimating DALYs need to derive local disability weights using methods that are less cognitively demanding for respondents.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4990533
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Co-Action Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49905332016-09-07 Disability weights from a household survey in a low socio-economic setting: how does it compare to the global burden of disease 2010 study? Neethling, Ian Jelsma, Jennifer Ramma, Lebogang Schneider, Helen Bradshaw, Debbie Glob Health Action Original Article BACKGROUND: The global burden of disease (GBD) 2010 study used a universal set of disability weights to estimate disability adjusted life years (DALYs) by country. However, it is not clear whether these weights can be applied universally in calculating DALYs to inform local decision-making. This study derived disability weights for a resource-constrained community in Cape Town, South Africa, and interrogated whether the GBD 2010 disability weights necessarily represent the preferences of economically disadvantaged communities. DESIGN: A household survey was conducted in Lavender Hill, Cape Town, to assess the health state preferences of the general public. The responses from a paired comparison valuation method were assessed using a probit regression. The probit coefficients were anchored onto the 0 to 1 disability weight scale by running a lowess regression on the GBD 2010 disability weights and interpolating the coefficients between the upper and lower limit of the smoothed disability weights. RESULTS: Heroin and opioid dependence had the highest disability weight of 0.630, whereas intellectual disability had the lowest (0.040). Untreated injuries ranked higher than severe mental disorders. There were some counterintuitive results, such as moderate (15th) and severe vision impairment (16th) ranking higher than blindness (20th). A moderate correlation between the disability weights of the local study and those of the GBD 2010 study was observed (R(2)=0.440, p<0.05). This indicates that there was a relationship, although some conditions, such as untreated fracture of the radius or ulna, showed large variability in disability weights (0.488 in local study and 0.043 in GBD 2010). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents seemed to value physical mobility higher than cognitive functioning, which is in contrast to the GBD 2010 study. This study shows that not all health state preferences are universal. Studies estimating DALYs need to derive local disability weights using methods that are less cognitively demanding for respondents. Co-Action Publishing 2016-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4990533/ /pubmed/27539894 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.31754 Text en © 2016 Ian Neethling et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
spellingShingle Original Article
Neethling, Ian
Jelsma, Jennifer
Ramma, Lebogang
Schneider, Helen
Bradshaw, Debbie
Disability weights from a household survey in a low socio-economic setting: how does it compare to the global burden of disease 2010 study?
title Disability weights from a household survey in a low socio-economic setting: how does it compare to the global burden of disease 2010 study?
title_full Disability weights from a household survey in a low socio-economic setting: how does it compare to the global burden of disease 2010 study?
title_fullStr Disability weights from a household survey in a low socio-economic setting: how does it compare to the global burden of disease 2010 study?
title_full_unstemmed Disability weights from a household survey in a low socio-economic setting: how does it compare to the global burden of disease 2010 study?
title_short Disability weights from a household survey in a low socio-economic setting: how does it compare to the global burden of disease 2010 study?
title_sort disability weights from a household survey in a low socio-economic setting: how does it compare to the global burden of disease 2010 study?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4990533/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27539894
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.31754
work_keys_str_mv AT neethlingian disabilityweightsfromahouseholdsurveyinalowsocioeconomicsettinghowdoesitcomparetotheglobalburdenofdisease2010study
AT jelsmajennifer disabilityweightsfromahouseholdsurveyinalowsocioeconomicsettinghowdoesitcomparetotheglobalburdenofdisease2010study
AT rammalebogang disabilityweightsfromahouseholdsurveyinalowsocioeconomicsettinghowdoesitcomparetotheglobalburdenofdisease2010study
AT schneiderhelen disabilityweightsfromahouseholdsurveyinalowsocioeconomicsettinghowdoesitcomparetotheglobalburdenofdisease2010study
AT bradshawdebbie disabilityweightsfromahouseholdsurveyinalowsocioeconomicsettinghowdoesitcomparetotheglobalburdenofdisease2010study